TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 200 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129445; 13856-4_0200 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 200 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 333 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128908; 13856-4_0333 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 333 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 318 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128888; 13856-4_0318 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 318 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 197 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128674; 13856-4_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 197 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 248 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128618; 13856-4_0248 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 248 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 201 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128606; 13856-4_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 201 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128606?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 192 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128581; 13856-4_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 192 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 245 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128554; 13856-4_0245 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 245 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 191 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128503; 13856-4_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 191 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 183 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128421; 13856-4_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 183 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 250 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128389; 13856-4_0250 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 250 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 301 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128344; 13856-4_0301 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 301 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 172 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128304; 13856-4_0172 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 172 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 335 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128197; 13856-4_0335 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 335 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 174 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128189; 13856-4_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 174 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 102 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128166; 13856-4_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 102 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 277 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128165; 13856-4_0277 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 277 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 97 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128125; 13856-4_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 97 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 324 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128089; 13856-4_0324 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 324 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 89 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128053; 13856-4_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 89 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 100 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128050; 13856-4_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 100 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 90 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128046; 13856-4_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 90 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 194 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128038; 13856-4_0194 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 194 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 84 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128025; 13856-4_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 251 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128024; 13856-4_0251 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 251 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 240 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128010; 13856-4_0240 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 240 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 322 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128008; 13856-4_0322 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 322 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 232 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127994; 13856-4_0232 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 232 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 317 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127981; 13856-4_0317 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 317 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 86 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127973; 13856-4_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 86 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127966; 13856-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 181 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127964; 13856-4_0181 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 181 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 226 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127922; 13856-4_0226 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 226 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 99 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127919; 13856-4_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 99 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 75 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127900; 13856-4_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127890; 13856-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 219 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127877; 13856-4_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 219 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 94 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127849; 13856-4_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 94 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127837; 13856-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 272 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127806; 13856-4_0272 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 272 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 160 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127800; 13856-4_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 160 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Regulatory+Guidelines+to+Minimize+Impacts+to+Seagrasses+from+Single-family+Residential+Dock+Structures+in+Florida+and+Puerto+Rico&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Regulatory+Guidelines+to+Minimize+Impacts+to+Seagrasses+from+Single-family+Residential+Dock+Structures+in+Florida+and+Puerto+Rico&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 236 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127761; 13856-4_0236 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 236 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=232&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=130&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Microscopy+%28Oxford%29&rft.issn=00222720&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2818.2008.02074.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 286 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127744; 13856-4_0286 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 286 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 157 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127743; 13856-4_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 157 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 141 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127736; 13856-4_0141 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 141 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=430&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 227 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127721; 13856-4_0227 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 227 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Arsenic+flux+during+successive+aquifer+storage+recovery+cycle+tests+in+the+upper+Floridan+Aquifer+system%2C+Central+and+south+Florida&rft.au=Mirecki%2C+June+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Mirecki&rft.aufirst=June&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=211&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 273 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127700; 13856-4_0273 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 273 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 151 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127696; 13856-4_0151 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 151 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 81 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127692; 13856-4_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 81 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Spatial+variation+of+shoreline+change+along+an+important+Marine+Corps+amphibious+training+ground%2C+Onslow+Beach%2C+North+Carolina%3B+Part+2%2C+Beach+morphology&rft.au=Rodriguez%2C+Antonio+B%3BFegley%2C+Stephen+R%3BMattheus%2C+Christopher+R%3BTimmons%2C+Emily+A%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse%3BWadman%2C+Heidi%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Rodriguez&rft.aufirst=Antonio&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=120&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 222 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127682; 13856-4_0222 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 222 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 331 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127676; 13856-4_0331 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 331 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Near-surface+characterization+for+expeditionary+%26amp%3B+homeland+defense&rft.au=McKenna%2C+Jason+R%3BKelley%2C+Julie+R%3BBerry%2C+Thomas+E%3BHorton%2C+Robert+J%3BWakeley%2C+Lillian+D%3BPearson%2C+Monte+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=McKenna&rft.aufirst=Jason&rft.date=2008-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=119&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127662; 13856-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 264 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127643; 13856-4_0264 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 264 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 223 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127535; 13856-4_0223 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 223 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 287 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127272; 13856-4_0287 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 287 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+14%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+35+TO+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+50+IN+STEELE+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 307 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127264; 13856-4_0307 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 307 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 306 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127245; 13856-4_0306 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 306 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 129 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127240; 13856-4_0129 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 129 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=M-PIT+MINE+EXPANSION+AT+THE+MONTANA+TUNNELS+MINE+IN+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127202; 13856-4_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 132 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127187; 13856-4_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 132 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127179; 13856-4_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 72 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127174; 13856-4_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 115 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127172; 13856-4_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 115 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 217 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127158; 13856-4_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 217 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2008-09-24&rft.volume=217&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=117&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Modelling&rft.issn=03043800&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecolmodel.2008.06.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 107 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127128; 13856-4_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 107 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 105 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127102; 13856-4_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 105 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 147 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127081; 13856-4_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 147 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127076; 13856-4_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 163 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127057; 13856-4_0163 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 163 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 303 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127051; 13856-4_0303 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 303 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 241 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127041; 13856-4_0241 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 241 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+MINIMUM+FLOW+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2006%29.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+MINIMUM+FLOW+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127028; 13856-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=COYOTE+SPRINGS+INVESTMENT+PLAN+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 162 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127026; 13856-4_0162 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 162 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 168 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127009; 13856-4_0168 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 168 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 71 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126932; 13856-4_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126904; 13856-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 225 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126893; 13856-4_0225 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 225 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126881; 13856-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Cary&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2008WR006815 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 123 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126860; 13856-4_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 123 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Regional+Supplement+to+the+Corps+of+Engineers+Wetland+Delineation+Manual%3A+Arid+West+Region+%28Version+2.0%29&rft.title=Regional+Supplement+to+the+Corps+of+Engineers+Wetland+Delineation+Manual%3A+Arid+West+Region+%28Version+2.0%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 148 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126854; 13856-4_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 148 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+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=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Technical+Guidelines+for+Environmental+Dredging+of+Contaminated+Sediments&rft.title=Technical+Guidelines+for+Environmental+Dredging+of+Contaminated+Sediments&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 111 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126759; 13856-4_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 111 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 108 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126746; 13856-4_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 108 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126745; 13856-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126738; 13856-4_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 260 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126737; 13856-4_0260 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 260 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126734; 13856-4_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126731; 13856-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126726; 13856-4_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126714; 13856-4_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126712; 13856-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 143 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126703; 13856-4_0143 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 143 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126677; 13856-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126314; 13856-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 279 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126295; 13856-4_0279 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 279 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126287; 13856-4_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126268; 13856-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=115&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UXO+special+issue+of+JEEG&rft.title=UXO+special+issue+of+JEEG&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 209 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126218; 13856-4_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 209 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126205; 13856-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 122 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126101; 13856-4_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 122 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 121 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126092; 13856-4_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 121 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125993; 13856-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 349 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125921; 13856-4_0349 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 349 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 343 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125876; 13856-4_0343 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 343 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 344 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125476; 13856-4_0344 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 344 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 346 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125464; 13856-4_0346 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 346 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 339 of 356] T2 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873125420; 13856-4_0339 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 339 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field Application of Activated Carbon Amendment for In-Situ Stabilization of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Marine Sediment AN - 754542247; 13267365 AB - We report results on the first field-scale application of activated carbon (AC) amendment to contaminated sediment for in-situ stabilization of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The test was performed on a tidal mud flat at South Basin, adjacent to the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco Bay, CA. The major goals of the field study were to (1) assess scale up of the AC mixing technology using two available, large-scale devices, (2) validate the effectiveness of the AC amendment at the field scale, and (3) identify possible adverse effects of the remediation technology. Also, the test allowed comparison among monitoring tools, evaluation of longer-term effectiveness of AC amendment, and identification of field-related factors that confound the performance of in-situ biological assessments. Following background pretreatment measurements, we successfully incorporated AC into sediment to a nominal 30 cm depth during a single mixing event, as confirmed by total organic carbon and black carbon contents in the designated test plots. The measured AC dose averaged 2.0-3.2 wt% and varied depending on sampling locations and mixing equipment. AC amendment did not impact sediment resuspension or PCB release into the water column over the treatment plots, nor adversely impact the existing macro benthic community composition, richness, or diversity. The PCB bioaccumulation in marine clams was reduced when exposed to sediment treated with 2% AC in comparison to the control plot. Field-deployed semi permeable membrane devices and polyethylene devices showed about 50% reduction in PCB uptake in AC-treated sediment and similar reduction in estimated pore-water PCB concentration. This reduction was evident even after 13-month post-treatment with then 7 months of continuous exposure, indicating AC treatment efficacy was retained for an extended period. Aqueous equilibrium PCB concentrations and PCB desorption showed an AC-dose response. Field-exposed AC after 18 months retained a strong stabilization capability to reduce aqueous equilibrium PCB concentrations by about 90%, which also supports the long-term effectiveness of AC in the field. Additional mixing during or after AC deployment, increasing AC dose, reducing AC-particle size, and sequential deployment of AC dose will likely improve AC-sediment contact and overall effectiveness. The reductions in PCB availability observed with slow mass transfer under field conditions calls for predictive models to assess the long-term trends in pore-water PCB concentrations and the benefits of alternative in-situ AC application and mixing strategies. JF - Environmental Science & Technology AU - Cho, Yeo-Myoung AU - Ghosh, Upal AU - Kennedy, Alan J AU - Grossman, Adam AU - Ray, Gary AU - Tomaszewski, Jeanne E AU - Smithenry, Dennis W AU - Bridges, Todd S AU - Luthy, Richard G AD - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Room 313B Stanford, California 94305-4020, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland 21250, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, EP-R Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute for Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH-Zentrum, CH-8092 Zrich, Switzerland, and Department of Education, Elmhurst College, 190 Prospect Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois 60126 Y1 - 2009/04/23/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Apr 23 SP - 3815 EP - 3823 PB - American Chemical Society, 1155 16th St., NW Washington DC 20036 USA VL - 43 IS - 10 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - Pollution Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Prediction KW - Bioremediation KW - Polychlorinated Biphenyls KW - Basins KW - Biodiversity KW - Mixing KW - Resuspended sediments KW - Carbon KW - Assessments KW - black carbon KW - Total organic carbon KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Brackishwater environment KW - PCB compounds KW - PCB KW - Testing Procedures KW - Sediment pollution KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Desorption KW - Membranes KW - mud flats KW - Activated carbon KW - Benthic communities KW - Brackish KW - Stabilizing KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Equilibrium KW - prediction models KW - INE, USA, California, San Francisco Bay KW - water column KW - Mass transfer KW - Side effects KW - Activated Carbon KW - Technology KW - O 4020:Pollution - Organisms/Ecology/Toxicology KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries KW - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754542247?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.atitle=Field+Application+of+Activated+Carbon+Amendment+for+In-Situ+Stabilization+of+Polychlorinated+Biphenyls+in+Marine+Sediment&rft.au=Cho%2C+Yeo-Myoung%3BGhosh%2C+Upal%3BKennedy%2C+Alan+J%3BGrossman%2C+Adam%3BRay%2C+Gary%3BTomaszewski%2C+Jeanne+E%3BSmithenry%2C+Dennis+W%3BBridges%2C+Todd+S%3BLuthy%2C+Richard+G&rft.aulast=Cho&rft.aufirst=Yeo-Myoung&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3815&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fes802931c L2 - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802931c LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resuspended sediments; Prediction; Sediment chemistry; Sediment pollution; Brackishwater environment; Biodiversity; Mass transfer; Stabilizing; PCB; mud flats; Membranes; Bioremediation; Desorption; Activated carbon; Benthic communities; Basins; Bioaccumulation; black carbon; Total organic carbon; prediction models; water column; PCB compounds; Side effects; Technology; Testing Procedures; Carbon; Assessments; Equilibrium; Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Sediment Contamination; Mixing; Activated Carbon; INE, USA, California, San Francisco Bay; Brackish DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es802931c ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWHALL RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPINEFLOWER CONSERVATION PLAN, SANTA CLARITA VALLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36346650; 13856 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the associated Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP) in the Santa Clarita Valley of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, California is proposed by the Newhall Land and Farming Company (Newhall). The project area is located in a portion of the valley within the northwestern section of the county between the city of Santa Clarita to the east and the Los Angeles County/Ventura County line. The RMDP would facilitate the development of the already approved Newhall Ranch Specific Area as a residential, mixed use, and nonresidential community approved by the County of Los Angeles on May 27, 2003. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed RMPD (Alternative 2) would provide for natural resource conservation, management, and permitting plan for sensitive biological resources within the previously approved 11,999-acre Newhall Ranch Specific Plan area as well as within the 1,517-acre Salt Creek Conservation Area in Ventura County adjacent to the Specific Plan site. The RMDP would be relied upon to obtain federal and state permits to implement infrastructure improvements required to facilitate build-out of the approved Specific Plan. The RDMP would implement a variety of habitat enhancement and restoration activities along and within the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages. The habitat enhancement and restoration activities would be implemented in conjunction with the development of the approved Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Habitat restoration activities would include rehabilitation of areas of native habitat that have been disturbed by past developments or by non-native plant species such as giant reed and tamarisk. Habitat restoration would include revegetation of native plant communities on candidate sites contiguous to existing riparian habitat, maintenance of revegetation sites, and control of non-native plants. Monitoring of the restoration sites would be conducted to evaluate the success of revegetation efforts, and contingency plans and measures would be readied to ensure that habitat restoration objectives were achieved. Infrastructure projects in the Santa Clara River and its tributary drainages would include construction of three bridges across the river and 15 culverts scattered around six tributary drainages; bank and channel stabilization and channel regrading; open and closed drainage facilities; water control facilities; preservation and enhancement of drainages; conversion off certain drainages to buried storm drains; development of a utility corridor, including stream crossings; construction of a Santa Clara River outfall for the previously approved New Ranch Water Reclamation Plant; improvement of State Route 126, including a grade-separated crossing of Long Canyon Road, development of a system of bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian trails; and implementation of geotechnical investigations to ensure safe development practices. The proposed SCP project component would provide for a conservation and management plan to protect and manage a system of preserves designed to maximize long-term persistence of the San Fernando Valley spineflower, a candidate species for federal production under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and an already state-listed protected species. The conservation plan would address plant populations located within the Specific Plan area and two other areas, namely, the 1,265-acre Valencia Commerce Center commercial/industrial complex and 316-acre Entrada residential and commercial complex. The plan would also be used by Newhall to request the taking (removal) of spineflower in areas located outside designated spineflower preserves. The applicant is also requesting, from the California Department of Fish and Game, a master streambed alteration agreement and two incidental take permits, one for spineflower located outside designated preserves within the project area and the other for Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The residential, industrial, and commercial developments would provide for housing and employment as well as the associated services and amenities, while the natural resource management aspects of the plans would ensure an adequate environment for regional wildlife and plant life, particularly with respect to the targeted endangered species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development and management activities would result in alteration of surface water hydrology and floodplains, stream geomorphology and riparian resources, water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, streambanks and streambeds, air quality, traffic congestion, ambient noise levels, cultural and paleontological resource sites, agricultural land, visual resources, and recreational resources. Construction workers would encounter numerous hazardous waste sites. The developments would lie within a seismically active area. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090134, Volume I--527 pages and maps, Volume II--568 pages and maps, Volume III--948 pages and maps, Volume IV--298 pages (oversize), Volume V--548 pages and maps, April 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Geology KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Housing KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Industrial Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Santa Clara River KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Plants KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NEWHALL+RANCH+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+AND+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN+AND+SPINEFLOWER+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+SANTA+CLARITA+VALLEY%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 756825049; 13849-090127_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the I-55 Interchange at E.H. Crump Boulevard (State Route 15/U.S. 64) and South Riverside Boulevard within the western edge of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee is proposed. I-55 is one of the major north-south transit corridors in the country and is utilized by high volumes of everyday local commuters and through traffic, including an abundance of commercial truck traffic. The current outdated cloverleaf design poses multiple safety and efficiency problems. The project corridor termini are the eastern terminus of the I-55 Mississippi River Bridge in Memphis on the north and a point near Wisconsin Avenue on the south. The project area consists of a 500-foot corridor extending along 1.5 miles of the existing I-55 alignment. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to the French Fort neighborhood and the timing of the buy-out of potentially displaced homeowners. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would modify the I-55 interchange to improve traffic movements along and between the I-55 and McLemore interchange and the Mississippi River Bridge. The existing loop ramp in the southwest quadrant would be removed. Existing infrastructure would be utilized where feasible. This alternative would require the construction of three new structures and substantial retaining walls, and elimination of the existing ramps to the Metal Museum. Alternative B would implement the same basic design as Alternative A, but would incorporate modifications to address concerns over continuity for southbound I 55 motorists wishing to access E.H. Crump Boulevard immediately after crossing the Mississippi River. Southbound I-55 motorists would be provided continuous access to E.H. Crump Boulevard via an outside auxiliary road that would cross under the four-lane mainline structure. The two signalized intersections on Illinois Avenue proposed in Alternative A would be eliminated. Unlike Alternative A, this option would not include direct access to the residential and commercial properties on Illinois Avenue from I-55. However, it would provide the southwest quadrant with direct access to eastbound E.H. Crump Boulevard via an added lane that would connect to the outside auxiliary lane from southbound I-55. Both build alternatives would include flyover bridges for the main lanes of I-55 configured with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Total estimated project costs for Alternatives A and B are $32.4 million and $31.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would resolve safety and capacity issues at the I-55 at Crump Boulevard Interchange. Congestion and the number of crashes would be reduced, and interstate route continuity would be restored. The proposed improvements would provide I-55 traffic with continuous free-flow mainline movements by eliminating the need to utilize one-lane exit/entrance ramps to remain on the interstate. Removal of the loop ramp in the southwest quadrant would improve safety by eliminating the associated weave movement in this area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new interchange would result in the conversion of residential and commercial land located immediately southwest of the current interchange, including the northeast corner of the French Fort neighborhood. Alternative A would require relocation of seven residences and two businesses, while Alternative B would require relocation of nine residences and one business. One archaeological site would be impacted during construction. Alternatives A and B would result in noise impacts to 39 and 37 receptors, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090127, 217 pages and maps, April 21, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Museums KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 55 INTERCHANGE AT E.H. CRUMP BOULEVARD AND SOUTH RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD IN MEMPHIS, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36349692; 13849 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the I-55 Interchange at E.H. Crump Boulevard (State Route 15/U.S. 64) and South Riverside Boulevard within the western edge of Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee is proposed. I-55 is one of the major north-south transit corridors in the country and is utilized by high volumes of everyday local commuters and through traffic, including an abundance of commercial truck traffic. The current outdated cloverleaf design poses multiple safety and efficiency problems. The project corridor termini are the eastern terminus of the I-55 Mississippi River Bridge in Memphis on the north and a point near Wisconsin Avenue on the south. The project area consists of a 500-foot corridor extending along 1.5 miles of the existing I-55 alignment. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to the French Fort neighborhood and the timing of the buy-out of potentially displaced homeowners. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A would modify the I-55 interchange to improve traffic movements along and between the I-55 and McLemore interchange and the Mississippi River Bridge. The existing loop ramp in the southwest quadrant would be removed. Existing infrastructure would be utilized where feasible. This alternative would require the construction of three new structures and substantial retaining walls, and elimination of the existing ramps to the Metal Museum. Alternative B would implement the same basic design as Alternative A, but would incorporate modifications to address concerns over continuity for southbound I 55 motorists wishing to access E.H. Crump Boulevard immediately after crossing the Mississippi River. Southbound I-55 motorists would be provided continuous access to E.H. Crump Boulevard via an outside auxiliary road that would cross under the four-lane mainline structure. The two signalized intersections on Illinois Avenue proposed in Alternative A would be eliminated. Unlike Alternative A, this option would not include direct access to the residential and commercial properties on Illinois Avenue from I-55. However, it would provide the southwest quadrant with direct access to eastbound E.H. Crump Boulevard via an added lane that would connect to the outside auxiliary lane from southbound I-55. Both build alternatives would include flyover bridges for the main lanes of I-55 configured with a design speed of 50 miles per hour. Total estimated project costs for Alternatives A and B are $32.4 million and $31.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would resolve safety and capacity issues at the I-55 at Crump Boulevard Interchange. Congestion and the number of crashes would be reduced, and interstate route continuity would be restored. The proposed improvements would provide I-55 traffic with continuous free-flow mainline movements by eliminating the need to utilize one-lane exit/entrance ramps to remain on the interstate. Removal of the loop ramp in the southwest quadrant would improve safety by eliminating the associated weave movement in this area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new interchange would result in the conversion of residential and commercial land located immediately southwest of the current interchange, including the northeast corner of the French Fort neighborhood. Alternative A would require relocation of seven residences and two businesses, while Alternative B would require relocation of nine residences and one business. One archaeological site would be impacted during construction. Alternatives A and B would result in noise impacts to 39 and 37 receptors, respectively. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090127, 217 pages and maps, April 21, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Museums KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+55+INTERCHANGE+AT+E.H.+CRUMP+BOULEVARD+AND+SOUTH+RIVERSIDE+BOULEVARD+IN+MEMPHIS%2C+SHELBY+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826537; 13848-090126_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step alternative screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives. Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 detailed study alternatives (DSAs) are considered in this draft EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D would range from $716 million to $850 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's rights-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090126, Volume 1--237 pages and maps, Appendices--198 pages, April 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-D KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures [STS]Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions [STS]Roads [STS]Section 4(f) Statements [STS]Traffic Analyses [STS]Traffic Control KW - Transportation [STS]Visual Resources [STS]Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826291; 13848-090126_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step alternative screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives. Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 detailed study alternatives (DSAs) are considered in this draft EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D would range from $716 million to $850 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's rights-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090126, Volume 1--237 pages and maps, Appendices--198 pages, April 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-D KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures [STS]Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions [STS]Roads [STS]Section 4(f) Statements [STS]Traffic Analyses [STS]Traffic Control KW - Transportation [STS]Visual Resources [STS]Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826284; 13848-090126_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step alternative screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives. Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 detailed study alternatives (DSAs) are considered in this draft EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D would range from $716 million to $850 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's rights-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090126, Volume 1--237 pages and maps, Appendices--198 pages, April 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-D KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures [STS]Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions [STS]Roads [STS]Section 4(f) Statements [STS]Traffic Analyses [STS]Traffic Control KW - Transportation [STS]Visual Resources [STS]Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756826274; 13848-090126_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step alternative screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives. Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 detailed study alternatives (DSAs) are considered in this draft EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D would range from $716 million to $850 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's rights-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090126, Volume 1--237 pages and maps, Appendices--198 pages, April 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-D KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures [STS]Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions [STS]Roads [STS]Section 4(f) Statements [STS]Traffic Analyses [STS]Traffic Control KW - Transportation [STS]Visual Resources [STS]Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FROM US 74 NEAR I 485 TO US 74 BETWEEN WINGATE AND MARSHVILLE, MECKLENBERG AND UNION COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36352672; 13848 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20-mile controlled-access toll road, to be known as the Monroe Connector/Bypass, extending from US 74 near I-485 in Mecklenberg County to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County, North Carolina is proposed. The project area lies southeast of Charlotte in the southern part of the Piedmont region. US 74 is the primary transportation route between Union County, the fastest growing county in North Carolina, and Mecklenberg County and Charlotte, the economic hub of the region. US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor, with many residential, commercial, and employment centers having direct access to and from US 74. Approximately 63 percent of total crashes recorded for the 23 intersections along US 74 within the project study area involved rear-end collisions, indicating excessive traffic volumes and a substantial number of interruptions to traffic flow. A three-step alternative screening process was used to develop and evaluate a range of alternatives and to determine the detailed study alternatives. Preliminary corridor segments were developed, qualitatively assessed, and compared with respect to potential impacts. Segments with relatively high impacts were eliminated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to noise, visual resources, air quality, and impacts to North Fork Crooked Creek. In addition to a No Build Alternative, 16 detailed study alternatives (DSAs) are considered in this draft EIS. Each DSA would have nine or ten interchanges and all would include an electronic toll system. DSA D, one of the shortest alternatives at 19.7 miles, is the recommended alternative and is comprised of DSA segments 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, and 40. Estimated cost of DSA D would range from $716 million to $850 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve mobility and capacity within the project area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor serving high-speed travel. Access to a toll road would relieve the congestion on US 74 where average travel speeds currently range from 20 to 30 miles per hour during the peak hour and are expected to decline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would have indirect, adverse effects on water quality from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction along the selected DSA's rights-of-way would result in loss of foraging and breeding habitat for various local wildlife species. The potential access improvements likely would increase residential suburbanization. All DSAs would require the relocation of residences and businesses, impacting nine neighborhoods. Implementation of DSA D would relocate 107 residences, 45 businesses, and three farms. The project could accelerate land use changes and change the character of neighborhoods. Natural resource impacts would include 499 acres of farmland, 450 acres of upland forest, 2.6 acres of ponds, 8.1 acres of wetlands, and 9,794 feet of perennial streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090126, Volume 1--237 pages and maps, Appendices--198 pages, April 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-01-D KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures [STS]Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions [STS]Roads [STS]Section 4(f) Statements [STS]Traffic Analyses [STS]Traffic Control KW - Transportation [STS]Visual Resources [STS]Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MONROE+CONNECTOR%2FBYPASS+FROM+US+74+NEAR+I+485+TO+US+74+BETWEEN+WINGATE+AND+MARSHVILLE%2C+MECKLENBERG+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THE GREENVILLE CONNECTOR, FROM RELOCATED US 82 TO PROPOSED INTERSTATE 69, WASHINGTON AND BOLIVAR COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - THE GREENVILLE CONNECTOR, FROM RELOCATED US 82 TO PROPOSED INTERSTATE 69, WASHINGTON AND BOLIVAR COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 756825217; 13845-090123_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Greenville Connector, an route built to interstate highway standards between US 82, the city of Greenville, and the proposed Interstate 69 (I-69) corridor, Washington and Bolivar counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study area lies Washington County near Greenville and southern Bolivar County south of Benoit. The land outside of the Greenville city limits is predominantly rural and agricultural. The US 82 bypass south of Greenville is under construction and would serve as the southern terminus for the Greenville Connector. A segment of the proposed I-69 multi-lane highway would traverse 100 miles of Bolivar County in a southwest-northeast direction from the Greenville Connector to a point near Robinsonville in Tunica County. I-69 would be the northern terminus of the Greenville Connector. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the connector's proximity to Metcalf and Greenville and relocation impacts affecting communities. Nine alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternatives B1, B2, and B3 were dismissed in part because they would not provide the vital link to the Delta Regional Airport located northeast of Greenville. Alternatives C1, C2, and C3 were deemed lacking in sufficient benefit from an economic development standpoint because they would run too far from Greenville. Alternative CA-Modified was dismissed as it would have too great an impact on community resources. Alternative CB is the preferred alternative based on the comparative analysis of the build alternatives. Design planning would commence in 2009, but funding has not been identified. Construction would have to coincide with that of the proposed I-69 corridor, which has an estimated date of completion of 2028. The cost estimate for construction of the Greenville Connector under Alternative CB in future dollars is $434 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a route from I-69 to Greenville, the region's major retail and employment center. This route would also connect two standard interstate facilities, I-69 and US 82, thereby increasing mobility, improving intermodal connections, and providing opportunities for economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would impact 65 acres of wetlands, 17,855 feet of streams, and 498 acres of floodplain. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 17 sensitive receptor sites. The preferred alternative would have minor adverse impact on one community facility and would require five residential and five commercial relocations. Construction would temporarily increase water pollution by exacerbating erosion, increasing siltation of streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090123, Draft EIS--142 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 16, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Airports KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Mississippi 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/756825217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THE+GREENVILLE+CONNECTOR%2C+FROM+RELOCATED+US+82+TO+PROPOSED+INTERSTATE+69%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+BOLIVAR+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=THE+GREENVILLE+CONNECTOR%2C+FROM+RELOCATED+US+82+TO+PROPOSED+INTERSTATE+69%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+BOLIVAR+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 16, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REAUTHORIZATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DISPOSAL SITE, COMMENCEMENT BAY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1988). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - REAUTHORIZATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DISPOSAL SITE, COMMENCEMENT BAY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1988). AN - 756824982; 13843-090120_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Reauthorization of the Commencement Bay disposal site for continued operations of the Puget Sound Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) is proposed. The 1988 final EIS entitled "Unconfined, Open-Water Disposal Sites for Dredged Material, Phase I (Central Puget Sound), Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis", a location in Commencement Bay was identified as a preferred site for dredged material disposal. Commencement Bay is located in the southern end of Puget Sound's main basin, south of Vashon and Maury Islands and adjacent to the city of Tacoma. The disposal site is located at the entrance to the bay, with water depth ranging from 530 to 560 feet. The existing shoreline permit was based on the analysis in the 1988 EIS which concluded that the site had a capacity of 9.0 million cubic yards (mcy) and predicted that this volume would be reached in 2028. Currently, the Commencement Bay site volume is expected to reach 9.0 mcy in 2009 and the permit will expire. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3) are evaluated in this draft supplement. Under Alternative 1, cumulative site volume would be increased from 9.0 mcy to a new cumulative disposal volume ceiling of 23 mcy, and two coordinate shifts within the Target Area would be incorporated. A provisional coordinate shift to the southeast implemented in 2007 at disposal volume 7.8 mcy would be formally adopted and an additional coordinate shift to the southwest corner of the target area would be implemented when a disposal volume of 18 mcy is reached. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would also expand site cumulative disposal volume ceiling to 23 mcy, and would incorporate three coordinate shifts within the target area (at 7.8 mcy, 13 mcy, and 18 mcy). Adaptive management would be exercised to control mound height and the dredged material footprint. Under Alternative 3, the No Action Alternative, the site would be closed to further disposal upon reaching a cumulative disposal volume of nine mcy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing disposal capacity of the bay dumping site would allow for expansion of harbor channel and basin maintenance activities, supporting the continued use of the Puget Sound by the increasing larger tankers and freight carriers using the port. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal activities would destroy benthos and damage benthic habitat and release turbidity into the water column. Some contaminated dredge spoil could be expected released into the bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090120, Draft Supplemental EIS--152 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 16 , 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Washington KW - Commencement Bay KW - Puget Sound KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=743&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00014966&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 16 , 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REAUTHORIZATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DISPOSAL SITE, COMMENCEMENT BAY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1988). AN - 36352836; 13843 AB - PURPOSE: Reauthorization of the Commencement Bay disposal site for continued operations of the Puget Sound Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) is proposed. The 1988 final EIS entitled "Unconfined, Open-Water Disposal Sites for Dredged Material, Phase I (Central Puget Sound), Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis", a location in Commencement Bay was identified as a preferred site for dredged material disposal. Commencement Bay is located in the southern end of Puget Sound's main basin, south of Vashon and Maury Islands and adjacent to the city of Tacoma. The disposal site is located at the entrance to the bay, with water depth ranging from 530 to 560 feet. The existing shoreline permit was based on the analysis in the 1988 EIS which concluded that the site had a capacity of 9.0 million cubic yards (mcy) and predicted that this volume would be reached in 2028. Currently, the Commencement Bay site volume is expected to reach 9.0 mcy in 2009 and the permit will expire. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3) are evaluated in this draft supplement. Under Alternative 1, cumulative site volume would be increased from 9.0 mcy to a new cumulative disposal volume ceiling of 23 mcy, and two coordinate shifts within the Target Area would be incorporated. A provisional coordinate shift to the southeast implemented in 2007 at disposal volume 7.8 mcy would be formally adopted and an additional coordinate shift to the southwest corner of the target area would be implemented when a disposal volume of 18 mcy is reached. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would also expand site cumulative disposal volume ceiling to 23 mcy, and would incorporate three coordinate shifts within the target area (at 7.8 mcy, 13 mcy, and 18 mcy). Adaptive management would be exercised to control mound height and the dredged material footprint. Under Alternative 3, the No Action Alternative, the site would be closed to further disposal upon reaching a cumulative disposal volume of nine mcy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing disposal capacity of the bay dumping site would allow for expansion of harbor channel and basin maintenance activities, supporting the continued use of the Puget Sound by the increasing larger tankers and freight carriers using the port. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal activities would destroy benthos and damage benthic habitat and release turbidity into the water column. Some contaminated dredge spoil could be expected released into the bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090120, Draft Supplemental EIS--152 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 16 , 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Washington KW - Commencement Bay KW - Puget Sound KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REAUTHORIZATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PROGRAM+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+COMMENCEMENT+BAY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1988%29.&rft.title=REAUTHORIZATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PROGRAM+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+COMMENCEMENT+BAY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1988%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 16 , 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THE GREENVILLE CONNECTOR, FROM RELOCATED US 82 TO PROPOSED INTERSTATE 69, WASHINGTON AND BOLIVAR COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 36344304; 13845 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Greenville Connector, an route built to interstate highway standards between US 82, the city of Greenville, and the proposed Interstate 69 (I-69) corridor, Washington and Bolivar counties, Mississippi is proposed. The study area lies Washington County near Greenville and southern Bolivar County south of Benoit. The land outside of the Greenville city limits is predominantly rural and agricultural. The US 82 bypass south of Greenville is under construction and would serve as the southern terminus for the Greenville Connector. A segment of the proposed I-69 multi-lane highway would traverse 100 miles of Bolivar County in a southwest-northeast direction from the Greenville Connector to a point near Robinsonville in Tunica County. I-69 would be the northern terminus of the Greenville Connector. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the connector's proximity to Metcalf and Greenville and relocation impacts affecting communities. Nine alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternatives B1, B2, and B3 were dismissed in part because they would not provide the vital link to the Delta Regional Airport located northeast of Greenville. Alternatives C1, C2, and C3 were deemed lacking in sufficient benefit from an economic development standpoint because they would run too far from Greenville. Alternative CA-Modified was dismissed as it would have too great an impact on community resources. Alternative CB is the preferred alternative based on the comparative analysis of the build alternatives. Design planning would commence in 2009, but funding has not been identified. Construction would have to coincide with that of the proposed I-69 corridor, which has an estimated date of completion of 2028. The cost estimate for construction of the Greenville Connector under Alternative CB in future dollars is $434 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a route from I-69 to Greenville, the region's major retail and employment center. This route would also connect two standard interstate facilities, I-69 and US 82, thereby increasing mobility, improving intermodal connections, and providing opportunities for economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would impact 65 acres of wetlands, 17,855 feet of streams, and 498 acres of floodplain. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 17 sensitive receptor sites. The preferred alternative would have minor adverse impact on one community facility and would require five residential and five commercial relocations. Construction would temporarily increase water pollution by exacerbating erosion, increasing siltation of streams. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090123, Draft EIS--142 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 16, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-MS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Airports KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Mississippi 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/36344304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THE+GREENVILLE+CONNECTOR%2C+FROM+RELOCATED+US+82+TO+PROPOSED+INTERSTATE+69%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+BOLIVAR+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=THE+GREENVILLE+CONNECTOR%2C+FROM+RELOCATED+US+82+TO+PROPOSED+INTERSTATE+69%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+BOLIVAR+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 16, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. AN - 756826549; 13840-090117_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within the Everglades National Park of Florida is proposed. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cfs pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal that would create groundwater mounding and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. As currently envisioned, ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of of any remaining canal segments. Total project cost for the recommended plan is estimated at $135.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal Plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. The West Indian manatee could experience periodic localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal that could precipitate some redistribution of manatee use in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541) JF - EPA number: 090117, Draft EIS--324 pages, Annex A--401 pages, Annex B through F (Volume 1)--414 pages, Appendix A--266 pages, Appendix B--376 pages, April 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Manatee Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. AN - 756826490; 13840-090117_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within the Everglades National Park of Florida is proposed. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cfs pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal that would create groundwater mounding and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. As currently envisioned, ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of of any remaining canal segments. Total project cost for the recommended plan is estimated at $135.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal Plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. The West Indian manatee could experience periodic localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal that could precipitate some redistribution of manatee use in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541) JF - EPA number: 090117, Draft EIS--324 pages, Annex A--401 pages, Annex B through F (Volume 1)--414 pages, Appendix A--266 pages, Appendix B--376 pages, April 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Manatee Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. AN - 756826472; 13840-090117_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within the Everglades National Park of Florida is proposed. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cfs pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal that would create groundwater mounding and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. As currently envisioned, ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of of any remaining canal segments. Total project cost for the recommended plan is estimated at $135.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal Plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. The West Indian manatee could experience periodic localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal that could precipitate some redistribution of manatee use in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541) JF - EPA number: 090117, Draft EIS--324 pages, Annex A--401 pages, Annex B through F (Volume 1)--414 pages, Appendix A--266 pages, Appendix B--376 pages, April 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Manatee Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=517&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.issn=09639292&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10646-008-0207-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. AN - 756826326; 13840-090117_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within the Everglades National Park of Florida is proposed. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cfs pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal that would create groundwater mounding and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. As currently envisioned, ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of of any remaining canal segments. Total project cost for the recommended plan is estimated at $135.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal Plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. The West Indian manatee could experience periodic localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal that could precipitate some redistribution of manatee use in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541) JF - EPA number: 090117, Draft EIS--324 pages, Annex A--401 pages, Annex B through F (Volume 1)--414 pages, Appendix A--266 pages, Appendix B--376 pages, April 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Manatee Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN: C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT. AN - 756826314; 13840-090117_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within the Everglades National Park of Florida is proposed. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cfs pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal that would create groundwater mounding and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. As currently envisioned, ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of of any remaining canal segments. Total project cost for the recommended plan is estimated at $135.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal Plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. The West Indian manatee could experience periodic localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal that could precipitate some redistribution of manatee use in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541) JF - EPA number: 090117, Draft EIS--324 pages, Annex A--401 pages, Annex B through F (Volume 1)--414 pages, Appendix A--266 pages, Appendix B--376 pages, April 13, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Manatee Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%3A+C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 13, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). AN - 868223688; 13837-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of 3.0 million cubic yards of disposal and/or re-use capacity for dredge spoil from the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles County, California is proposed. The deepening of the Inner Harbor channels of the Port of Los Angeles, California was proposed in a September 1995 final EIS. The final supplemental EIS of April 2000 addressed dredging depths and disposal options and capacity. This final supplemental EIS addresses impacts related to modifications required to complete disposal of dredged material. The overall channel deepening project was proposed to allow the harbor to accommodate the most modern vessels in the commercial container fleet. The project site is located at the southern end of the city of Los Angeles and includes portions of the Los Angeles Inner and Outer Harbors, San Pedro Bay. Existing navigation channels and basins within the harbor are dredged to 45 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW), which does not provide enough draft for many newly build container vessels. Both alternative dredge depths and disposal sites are assessed in this final supplement to the draft EIS of 1992, as are 21 specific dredge/disposal combinations. The channels would be dredged to a depth of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This final supplemental EIS addresses two disposal alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3); the latter alternative would preclude the completion of the channel deepening project as disposal capacity would not meet disposal requirements. Alternative 1 would provide for the placement of dredged material at the following locations: Berths 243, 244, and 245, the Northwest Slip, Cabrillo Shallow Water Habitat (CSWH), and Ocean Disposal Site (ODS) LA-2. Alternative 1 would optimize beneficial use of the dredge spoil through port development and environmental enhancement applications. Port development uses of dredge spoil under Alternative 1 would result in the creation of a confined disposal facility to cap existing contaminated sediments at Berths 243, 244, and 245 and creation of a five-acre land area at the Northwest Slip to allow for more efficient and safer vehicle turning movements. Alternative 2 was developed with a focus on environmental enhancement uses of the remaining material and does not include any disposal sites associated with port development. Alternative 2 would include expansion of the CSWH, and disposal of the remaining dredge spoil at ODS LA-2, ODS LA-3 and the Anchorage Road Soil Storage Site. The creation of an eelgrass habitat area has been eliminated as one of the disposal sites after comments during public review concerning the impact on recreational boating activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the depths of the channels and basins within the harbor would allow the facility to accommodate the newest generation of container ships with drafts of up to 47.6 feet and larger ships that draft up to 52 feet. The new depths would allow container carriers to cut costs and improve the economic position of the port. Beneficial re-use of the dredge spoil would allow the last phase of the deepening project to be completed, while providing for port enhancements and contributing to efforts to protect and enhance the environment of San Pedro Bay. Creative re-use of the dredge spoil would add to the life of ODS LA-1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants during dredging and disposal would exceed federal standards. Noise from operation of the 35-acre Southwest Slip Fill Site would significantly impact five residences near the Cabrillo Shallow Water Expansion Site. Potentially significant historic buildings and structures at Berths 118 to 120 would be destroyed due to construction of the Southwest Slip Fill Site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0363D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090114, Final Supplemental EIS--888 pages and maps, Appendices and Responses to Comments--978 pages, CD-ROM, April 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Port of Los Angeles, California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.title=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). AN - 868223677; 13837-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of 3.0 million cubic yards of disposal and/or re-use capacity for dredge spoil from the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles County, California is proposed. The deepening of the Inner Harbor channels of the Port of Los Angeles, California was proposed in a September 1995 final EIS. The final supplemental EIS of April 2000 addressed dredging depths and disposal options and capacity. This final supplemental EIS addresses impacts related to modifications required to complete disposal of dredged material. The overall channel deepening project was proposed to allow the harbor to accommodate the most modern vessels in the commercial container fleet. The project site is located at the southern end of the city of Los Angeles and includes portions of the Los Angeles Inner and Outer Harbors, San Pedro Bay. Existing navigation channels and basins within the harbor are dredged to 45 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW), which does not provide enough draft for many newly build container vessels. Both alternative dredge depths and disposal sites are assessed in this final supplement to the draft EIS of 1992, as are 21 specific dredge/disposal combinations. The channels would be dredged to a depth of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This final supplemental EIS addresses two disposal alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3); the latter alternative would preclude the completion of the channel deepening project as disposal capacity would not meet disposal requirements. Alternative 1 would provide for the placement of dredged material at the following locations: Berths 243, 244, and 245, the Northwest Slip, Cabrillo Shallow Water Habitat (CSWH), and Ocean Disposal Site (ODS) LA-2. Alternative 1 would optimize beneficial use of the dredge spoil through port development and environmental enhancement applications. Port development uses of dredge spoil under Alternative 1 would result in the creation of a confined disposal facility to cap existing contaminated sediments at Berths 243, 244, and 245 and creation of a five-acre land area at the Northwest Slip to allow for more efficient and safer vehicle turning movements. Alternative 2 was developed with a focus on environmental enhancement uses of the remaining material and does not include any disposal sites associated with port development. Alternative 2 would include expansion of the CSWH, and disposal of the remaining dredge spoil at ODS LA-2, ODS LA-3 and the Anchorage Road Soil Storage Site. The creation of an eelgrass habitat area has been eliminated as one of the disposal sites after comments during public review concerning the impact on recreational boating activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the depths of the channels and basins within the harbor would allow the facility to accommodate the newest generation of container ships with drafts of up to 47.6 feet and larger ships that draft up to 52 feet. The new depths would allow container carriers to cut costs and improve the economic position of the port. Beneficial re-use of the dredge spoil would allow the last phase of the deepening project to be completed, while providing for port enhancements and contributing to efforts to protect and enhance the environment of San Pedro Bay. Creative re-use of the dredge spoil would add to the life of ODS LA-1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants during dredging and disposal would exceed federal standards. Noise from operation of the 35-acre Southwest Slip Fill Site would significantly impact five residences near the Cabrillo Shallow Water Expansion Site. Potentially significant historic buildings and structures at Berths 118 to 120 would be destroyed due to construction of the Southwest Slip Fill Site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0363D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090114, Final Supplemental EIS--888 pages and maps, Appendices and Responses to Comments--978 pages, CD-ROM, April 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Port of Los Angeles, California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.title=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). AN - 868223554; 13837-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of 3.0 million cubic yards of disposal and/or re-use capacity for dredge spoil from the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles County, California is proposed. The deepening of the Inner Harbor channels of the Port of Los Angeles, California was proposed in a September 1995 final EIS. The final supplemental EIS of April 2000 addressed dredging depths and disposal options and capacity. This final supplemental EIS addresses impacts related to modifications required to complete disposal of dredged material. The overall channel deepening project was proposed to allow the harbor to accommodate the most modern vessels in the commercial container fleet. The project site is located at the southern end of the city of Los Angeles and includes portions of the Los Angeles Inner and Outer Harbors, San Pedro Bay. Existing navigation channels and basins within the harbor are dredged to 45 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW), which does not provide enough draft for many newly build container vessels. Both alternative dredge depths and disposal sites are assessed in this final supplement to the draft EIS of 1992, as are 21 specific dredge/disposal combinations. The channels would be dredged to a depth of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This final supplemental EIS addresses two disposal alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3); the latter alternative would preclude the completion of the channel deepening project as disposal capacity would not meet disposal requirements. Alternative 1 would provide for the placement of dredged material at the following locations: Berths 243, 244, and 245, the Northwest Slip, Cabrillo Shallow Water Habitat (CSWH), and Ocean Disposal Site (ODS) LA-2. Alternative 1 would optimize beneficial use of the dredge spoil through port development and environmental enhancement applications. Port development uses of dredge spoil under Alternative 1 would result in the creation of a confined disposal facility to cap existing contaminated sediments at Berths 243, 244, and 245 and creation of a five-acre land area at the Northwest Slip to allow for more efficient and safer vehicle turning movements. Alternative 2 was developed with a focus on environmental enhancement uses of the remaining material and does not include any disposal sites associated with port development. Alternative 2 would include expansion of the CSWH, and disposal of the remaining dredge spoil at ODS LA-2, ODS LA-3 and the Anchorage Road Soil Storage Site. The creation of an eelgrass habitat area has been eliminated as one of the disposal sites after comments during public review concerning the impact on recreational boating activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the depths of the channels and basins within the harbor would allow the facility to accommodate the newest generation of container ships with drafts of up to 47.6 feet and larger ships that draft up to 52 feet. The new depths would allow container carriers to cut costs and improve the economic position of the port. Beneficial re-use of the dredge spoil would allow the last phase of the deepening project to be completed, while providing for port enhancements and contributing to efforts to protect and enhance the environment of San Pedro Bay. Creative re-use of the dredge spoil would add to the life of ODS LA-1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants during dredging and disposal would exceed federal standards. Noise from operation of the 35-acre Southwest Slip Fill Site would significantly impact five residences near the Cabrillo Shallow Water Expansion Site. Potentially significant historic buildings and structures at Berths 118 to 120 would be destroyed due to construction of the Southwest Slip Fill Site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0363D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090114, Final Supplemental EIS--888 pages and maps, Appendices and Responses to Comments--978 pages, CD-ROM, April 8, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Port of Los Angeles, California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.title=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF LOS ANGELES CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF April 2000). AN - 36344246; 13837 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of 3.0 million cubic yards of disposal and/or re-use capacity for dredge spoil from the Port of Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project, Los Angeles County, California is proposed. The deepening of the Inner Harbor channels of the Port of Los Angeles, California was proposed in a September 1995 final EIS. The final supplemental EIS of April 2000 addressed dredging depths and disposal options and capacity. This final supplemental EIS addresses impacts related to modifications required to complete disposal of dredged material. The overall channel deepening project was proposed to allow the harbor to accommodate the most modern vessels in the commercial container fleet. The project site is located at the southern end of the city of Los Angeles and includes portions of the Los Angeles Inner and Outer Harbors, San Pedro Bay. Existing navigation channels and basins within the harbor are dredged to 45 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW), which does not provide enough draft for many newly build container vessels. Both alternative dredge depths and disposal sites are assessed in this final supplement to the draft EIS of 1992, as are 21 specific dredge/disposal combinations. The channels would be dredged to a depth of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This final supplemental EIS addresses two disposal alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3); the latter alternative would preclude the completion of the channel deepening project as disposal capacity would not meet disposal requirements. Alternative 1 would provide for the placement of dredged material at the following locations: Berths 243, 244, and 245, the Northwest Slip, Cabrillo Shallow Water Habitat (CSWH), and Ocean Disposal Site (ODS) LA-2. Alternative 1 would optimize beneficial use of the dredge spoil through port development and environmental enhancement applications. Port development uses of dredge spoil under Alternative 1 would result in the creation of a confined disposal facility to cap existing contaminated sediments at Berths 243, 244, and 245 and creation of a five-acre land area at the Northwest Slip to allow for more efficient and safer vehicle turning movements. Alternative 2 was developed with a focus on environmental enhancement uses of the remaining material and does not include any disposal sites associated with port development. Alternative 2 would include expansion of the CSWH, and disposal of the remaining dredge spoil at ODS LA-2, ODS LA-3 and the Anchorage Road Soil Storage Site. The creation of an eelgrass habitat area has been eliminated as one of the disposal sites after comments during public review concerning the impact on recreational boating activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the depths of the channels and basins within the harbor would allow the facility to accommodate the newest generation of container ships with drafts of up to 47.6 feet and larger ships that draft up to 52 feet. The new depths would allow container carriers to cut costs and improve the economic position of the port. Beneficial re-use of the dredge spoil would allow the last phase of the deepening project to be completed, while providing for port enhancements and contributing to efforts to protect and enhance the environment of San Pedro Bay. Creative re-use of the dredge spoil would add to the life of ODS LA-1. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of air pollutants during dredging and disposal would exceed federal standards. Noise from operation of the 35-acre Southwest Slip Fill Site would significantly impact five residences near the Cabrillo Shallow Water Expansion Site. Potentially significant historic buildings and structures at Berths 118 to 120 would be destroyed due to construction of the Southwest Slip Fill Site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0363D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090114, Final Supplemental EIS--888 pages and maps, Appendices and Responses to Comments--978 pages, CD-ROM, April 8, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Port of Los Angeles, California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.title=PORT+OF+LOS+ANGELES+CHANNEL+DEEPENING+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+April+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LONG BEACH HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MIDDLE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LONG BEACH HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126361; 13834-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project at Long Island harbor on Long Island, California is proposed. Waterways within the port are often too shallow and/or too narrow to accommodate deep-draft cargo ships. Some berths and piers are also inadequate for such ships. The existing utility infrastructure is outdated and inadequate to support environmental controls necessary to reduce pollution and conserve energy and rail capacity is inadequate at two piers. The proposed action, known as the 345-Acre Alternative, would rehabilitate or replace deteriorated and obsolete terminal facilities; dredge all berths, basins, and channels to a depth of 55 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW); create new backland; modernize marine terminal facilities; and implement environmental controls, including the harbors Green Port Policy, to accommodate a portion of the predicted increase in containerized cargo volume and the modern, larger cargo vessels expected to transport containers to and from the port. The existing Middle Harbor site would be increased to 345 acres, including 54.6 net acres of newly created land. The project would include terminal consolidation, redevelopment, and expansion on areas of existing and newly created land, dredge and fill operations, wharf construction to create three deep-water berths with depths of 55 feet below MLLW, and rail infrastructure improvements. The project would also include construction of a 66-kilovolt substation to provide power to support Middle Harbor container terminal operations, including supplying shore-to-ship power and future power needs for other port facilities. Project implementation would occur in two phases, with the first phase including five stages and the second four stages. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: When completed, the proposed action would provide a consolidated container terminal designed to load and unload containerized cargo to and from marine vessels. When optimized at maximum throughput capacity, by the year 2025, the consolidated terminal would accommodate 3.3 million 20-foot-equivalent units (TEUs) per year. The intermodal railyard would accommodate 796,800 TEUs annually. The project would provide employment for an additional 432 workers, primarily workers from the immediate area, and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the area of backland would reduce open water area and benthic habitat accordingly. Increased numbers of large cargo vessels calling on the port would increase the risk of collision with marine mammals. Truck trips to and from Middle Harbor would increase from an average of 6,528 per day in 2005 to 10,112 per day in 2025, resulting in significant increases in traffic congestion within the local road transportation in the vicinity of the harbor and adding significantly to the levels of criteria pollutants in a federal air quality standards nonattainment area. Similar increases in train traffic would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0353D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090111, 1,726 pages, CD-ROM, April 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Dredging KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Marine Mammals KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Waterways KW - California KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 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/873126361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLE HARBOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, LONG BEACH HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344890; 13834 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project at Long Island harbor on Long Island, California is proposed. Waterways within the port are often too shallow and/or too narrow to accommodate deep-draft cargo ships. Some berths and piers are also inadequate for such ships. The existing utility infrastructure is outdated and inadequate to support environmental controls necessary to reduce pollution and conserve energy and rail capacity is inadequate at two piers. The proposed action, known as the 345-Acre Alternative, would rehabilitate or replace deteriorated and obsolete terminal facilities; dredge all berths, basins, and channels to a depth of 55 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW); create new backland; modernize marine terminal facilities; and implement environmental controls, including the harbors Green Port Policy, to accommodate a portion of the predicted increase in containerized cargo volume and the modern, larger cargo vessels expected to transport containers to and from the port. The existing Middle Harbor site would be increased to 345 acres, including 54.6 net acres of newly created land. The project would include terminal consolidation, redevelopment, and expansion on areas of existing and newly created land, dredge and fill operations, wharf construction to create three deep-water berths with depths of 55 feet below MLLW, and rail infrastructure improvements. The project would also include construction of a 66-kilovolt substation to provide power to support Middle Harbor container terminal operations, including supplying shore-to-ship power and future power needs for other port facilities. Project implementation would occur in two phases, with the first phase including five stages and the second four stages. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: When completed, the proposed action would provide a consolidated container terminal designed to load and unload containerized cargo to and from marine vessels. When optimized at maximum throughput capacity, by the year 2025, the consolidated terminal would accommodate 3.3 million 20-foot-equivalent units (TEUs) per year. The intermodal railyard would accommodate 796,800 TEUs annually. The project would provide employment for an additional 432 workers, primarily workers from the immediate area, and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increasing the area of backland would reduce open water area and benthic habitat accordingly. Increased numbers of large cargo vessels calling on the port would increase the risk of collision with marine mammals. Truck trips to and from Middle Harbor would increase from an average of 6,528 per day in 2005 to 10,112 per day in 2025, resulting in significant increases in traffic congestion within the local road transportation in the vicinity of the harbor and adding significantly to the levels of criteria pollutants in a federal air quality standards nonattainment area. Similar increases in train traffic would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0353D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090111, 1,726 pages, CD-ROM, April 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Dredging KW - Electric Power KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Marine Mammals KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Waterways KW - California KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 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/36344890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-04-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLE+HARBOR+REDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LONG+BEACH+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MIDDLE+HARBOR+REDEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+LONG+BEACH+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Environmental fate of tungsten from military use. AN - 67009833; 19217645 AB - This manuscript describes the distribution, fate and transport of tungsten used in training rounds at three small arms ranges at Camp Edwards on the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), USA. Practice with tungsten/nylon rounds began in 2000 subsequent to a 1997 US Environmental Protection Agency ban on training with lead. Training with the tungsten rounds was halted in 2005 because of concerns regarding tungsten's environmental mobility and potential toxicity. This study, therefore, examines how tungsten partitions in the environment when fired on a small arms training range. Soil sampling revealed surface soil concentrations, highest at the berm face, up to 2080 mg/kg. Concentrations decreased rapidly with depth--at least by an order of magnitude by 25 cm. Nonetheless, tungsten concentrations remained above background to at least 150 cm. Pore-water samples from lysimeters installed in berm areas revealed a range of concentrations (<1-400 mg/L) elevated with respect to background although there was no discernable trend with depth. Groundwater monitoring well samples collected approximately 30 m below ground surface showed tungsten (0.001-0.56 mg/L) attributable to range use. JF - The Science of the total environment AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Korte, Nic AD - Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA. Jay.L.Clausen@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/04/01/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Apr 01 SP - 2887 EP - 2893 VL - 407 IS - 8 SN - 0048-9697, 0048-9697 KW - Environmental Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Soil KW - Water KW - 059QF0KO0R KW - Tungsten KW - V9306CXO6G KW - Index Medicus KW - Environmental Monitoring KW - Massachusetts KW - Humans KW - Water -- chemistry KW - Water Supply KW - Firearms KW - Tungsten -- analysis KW - Military Personnel KW - Tungsten -- chemistry KW - Environmental Pollutants -- chemistry KW - Environmental Pollutants -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67009833?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Science+of+the+total+environment&rft.atitle=Environmental+fate+of+tungsten+from+military+use.&rft.au=Clausen%2C+Jay+L%3BKorte%2C+Nic&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=407&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2887&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Science+of+the+total+environment&rft.issn=00489697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.scitotenv.2009.01.029 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-06-24 N1 - Date created - 2009-03-09 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.01.029 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Vertical gradational variability of fines deposited in a gravel framework AN - 50439015; 2009-046741 AB - Vertical gradational structures develop as sand infiltrates into static gravel beds. Understanding the vertical distribution of interstitial sand deposits will improve predictions of ecological suitability and hyporheic hydrodynamics. A series of flume experiments was performed to investigate fine infiltration processes. Four sand distributions were introduced into flows over gravel beds. After each experiment, bed cores were extracted and analysed in vertical layers to examine the gradational trends with depth. Vertical trends of fine content were highly sensitive to the relative grain-size distributions of the gravel bed and the introduced sand. For experiments with d (sub 15 gravel) /d (sub 85 sand) ratios 15.4 and larger unimpeded static percolation was observed, where sand filled the voids relatively uniformly from the bottom of the gravel layer to the top. Experiments with ratios 10.6 and smaller bridged. Sand clogged a thin layer of gravel pores near the bed surface, precluding subsequent infiltration. Interstitial sand deposits fined with depth of penetration for all experiments which was the result of three distinct but overlapping processes. (i) Granular sorting: As particles fell through the substrate, smaller material preferentially passed through the voids deeper into the gravel. (ii) Bed-load sorting: Size segregation occurs in the wake of the leading bed form as smaller particles saltate further and settle first. (iii) Hydraulic sorting: Smaller sand was transported preferentially as suspended load filling the deep voids of the furthest flume positions downstream. Finally, when the experiments that formed a bridge layer were replicated with higher bed shear stresses, less interstitial sand deposition was observed. Higher shear stresses transported coarse particles downstream more efficiently causing bridge layers to form earlier and allowing less time for suspended load to settle into the deeper substrate pores before the pathways were closed. Abstract Copyright (2009), International Association of Sedimentologists. JF - Sedimentology AU - Gibson, Stanford AU - Abraham, David AU - Heath, Ronald AU - Schoellhamer, David Y1 - 2009/04// PY - 2009 DA - April 2009 SP - 661 EP - 676 PB - Blackwell, Oxford VL - 56 IS - 3 SN - 0037-0746, 0037-0746 KW - experimental studies KW - stream transport KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - shear stress KW - grain size KW - fines KW - siltation KW - gravel KW - flume studies KW - variations KW - laboratory studies KW - sediments KW - sorting KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50439015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Sedimentology&rft.atitle=Vertical+gradational+variability+of+fines+deposited+in+a+gravel+framework&rft.au=Gibson%2C+Stanford%3BAbraham%2C+David%3BHeath%2C+Ronald%3BSchoellhamer%2C+David&rft.aulast=Gibson&rft.aufirst=Stanford&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=661&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Sedimentology&rft.issn=00370746&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1365-3091.2008.00991.x L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-3091/issues LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 74 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2016-11-17 N1 - CODEN - SEDIAT N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - clastic sediments; experimental studies; fines; flume studies; grain size; gravel; laboratory studies; sediment transport; sediments; shear stress; siltation; sorting; stream transport; variations DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3091.2008.00991.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Surfactive stabilization of multi-walled carbon nanotube dispersions with dissolved humic substances AN - 20405411; 9083003 AB - Soil humic substances (HS) stabilize carbon nanotube (CNT) dispersions, a mechanism we hypothesized arose from the surfactive nature of HS. Experiments dispersing multi-walled CNT in solutions of dissolved Aldrich humic acid (HA) or water-extractable Catlin soil HS demonstrated enhanced stability at 150 and 300mg L super(-) super(1) added Aldrich HA and Catlin HS, respectively, corresponding with decreased CNT mean particle diameter (MPD) and polydispersivity (PD) of 250nm and 0.3 for Aldrich HA and 450nm and 0.35 for Catlin HS. Analogous trends in MPD and PD were observed with addition of the surfactants Brij 35, Triton X-405, and SDS, corresponding to surfactant sorption maximum. NEXAFS characterization showed that Aldrich HA contained highly surfactive domains while Catlin soil possessed a mostly carbohydrate-based structure. This work demonstrates that the chemical structure of humic materials in natural waters is directly linked to their surfactive ability to disperse CNT released into the environment. JF - Environmental Pollution AU - Chappell, MA AU - George, A J AU - Dontsova, K M AU - Porter, B E AU - Price, CL AU - Zhou, P AU - Morikawa, E AU - Kennedy, A J AU - Steevens, JA AD - Engineering Research & Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, mark.a.chappell@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/04// PY - 2009 DA - Apr 2009 SP - 1081 EP - 1087 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl] VL - 157 IS - 4 SN - 0269-7491, 0269-7491 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Sorption KW - Pollution dispersion KW - Particulates KW - Soil KW - Carbon KW - Humic acids KW - Sodium lauryl sulfate KW - Cadmium KW - Surfactants KW - Pollution KW - nanotechnology KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - X 24360:Metals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20405411?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%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Pollution&rft.atitle=Surfactive+stabilization+of+multi-walled+carbon+nanotube+dispersions+with+dissolved+humic+substances&rft.au=Chappell%2C+MA%3BGeorge%2C+A+J%3BDontsova%2C+K+M%3BPorter%2C+B+E%3BPrice%2C+CL%3BZhou%2C+P%3BMorikawa%2C+E%3BKennedy%2C+A+J%3BSteevens%2C+JA&rft.aulast=Chappell&rft.aufirst=MA&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=157&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1081&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Pollution&rft.issn=02697491&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.envpol.2008.09.039 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Sorption; Carbon; Humic acids; Sodium lauryl sulfate; Surfactants; Pollution; Pollution dispersion; Cadmium; Particulates; nanotechnology DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.09.039 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 756825313; 13824-090099_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increase by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be the same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0490D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090099, 467 pages and maps, March 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Canals KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana 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/756825313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 756825189; 13824-090099_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increase by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be the same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0490D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090099, 467 pages and maps, March 30, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Canals KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana 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/756825189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 212 RECONSTRUCTION, ROCKVALE-LAUREL IN YELLOWSTONE AND CARBON COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36344977; 13824 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of 10.8 miles of US 212/310 southwest of Rockvale in Carbon and Yellowstone counties, Montana is proposed. The study corridor extends from reference post 42.1 and reference post 52.9 on US 212/310 in south-central Montana. Transportation demand estimates indicate that traffic within the corridor will increase by 125 percent between 2000 and 2025 . Moreover, while both the number and severity of accidents within the corridor fall below statewide averages, the number of accidents involving trucks is more than 2.7 times the statewide average. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS; two alternatives each incorporate two subalternatives. The preferred alternative (Alternative 5B-Combined West Bench) would involve construction of a four-lane highway on a west-by-northwest alignment, with provisions for access to both the present route and adjacent and nearby properties. The highway would consist of a new four-lane facility between the Rockvale area and the existing four-lane highway south of Laurel. The highway would provide for four 12-foot travel lanes with a depressed 36-foot median and eight-foot outside shoulders within a 260-foot rights-of-way. In built-up areas, such as Rockvale and Laurel, the cross-section would be tighter but the rights-of-way would be the same. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $54 million in 2012 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would improve safety for local and regional users of the highway corridor, accommodate anticipated traffic volumes for the at least next 20 years NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative implemented, rights-of-way development for the preferred alternative would convert 187.3 to 267.3 acres of prime farmland and 1.5 to 2.5 acres of wetlands to transportation uses and displace two to 10 residences; the preferred alternative would result in the displacement 1.5 acres of wetlands of four residences, one of which is a far house. One to three irrigation canals would be affected, with the preferred alternative traversing three such waterways. Any alternative would traverse one creek. Traffic-generated noise along the new highway would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of three to 11 sensitive receptor sites; noise levels along the preferred alignment would exceed federal standards at three sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0490D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090099, 467 pages and maps, March 30, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Canals KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Montana 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/36344977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+212+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+ROCKVALE-LAUREL+IN+YELLOWSTONE+AND+CARBON+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NEW ORLEANS, ORLEANS PARISH, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 1997). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NEW ORLEANS, ORLEANS PARISH, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 1997). AN - 756825223; 13821-090096_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the navigation link between the Mississippi River in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet on the east side of the river is proposed. The navigational link between the Mississippi River and these waterways is the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal and Lock constructed by the Port of New Orleans in 1923 in order to provide navigation between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, a distance of five miles, and to provide areas for industrial development. The lock is 75 feet wide and 640 feet long and has a sill depth of 31.5 mean low gulf. The lock has been operating at maximum capacity for a number of years, and vessel delays and congestion and closures at the lock are chronic problems. Delays are aggravated by three bridges that cross the canal in the vicinity of the lock. These bridges are closed to navigation traffic during rush hours for vehicular traffic. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of March 1997. In 2007, the Federal District Court for the Eastern New Orleans District enjoined the project and required the preparation of this supplemental EIS to describe changes in existing conditions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and to analyze impacts from the recommended plan and alternatives on these existing conditions. The plan tentatively selected in the 1997 EIS would involve the construction of a precast, floated-in, concrete lock 110 feet wide by 1,200 feet long with a depth of 36 feet. It would also include the replacement of the Saint Claude Avenue Bridge with a low-level double-bascule bridge, the replacement of the lift span and the raising of the towers on the Claiborne Avenue Bridge, and the implementation of a project mitigation plan. The selected 1997 Alternative, the No-Build/Deauthorization Plan Alternative, and two additional alternatives are considered in this supplemental EIS. The first new Alternative, known as the Cast-in-Place (CIP) plan, would be similar to the 1997 plan, except the CIP plan would provide for seven lock monoliths founded on piles with a cellular sheet pile cofferdam instead of floating monoliths down the canal to the new lock site. The second new Alternative, known as the Float-in-Place plan and constituting the recommended plan alternative, would also be similar to the 1997 plan. A temporary construction site would allow for lock module construction in dry conditions. Lock modules would be floated to the construction site via the canal. Additional evaluation has also refined the location and design of the confined contaminated dredge spoil disposal site, the locations and size of the off-site construction area, and the methods for disposal of clean dredge spoil. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement of lock operations would benefit industry and commercial navigation by providing a more efficient connection between the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The average annual net benefits are estimated at $58.3 million, and the ratio of average annual benefits to average annual costs is 1.91 to one. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The selected plan would adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat as a result of the development of the off-site construction area which would cause the loss of 25 freshwater wetland acres, although this loss would be mitigated by the restoration of 85 acres of wetlands in another location. In addition, this plan would cause traffic detours and congestion during the construction period, relocation of two businesses, job displacements, lost revenues for some local businesses, and construction noise in the vicinity of the canal. About three million cubic yards of dredged materials would be disposed of and a slight increase in the release of lock water would occur. Dredging activities would increase the river's sediment load in the Mississippi River by 27,000 tons per day. Vessel traffic would increase upon completion of the new lock. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0495D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0597D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 98-0056F, Volume 22, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090096, Volume 1--197 pages and maps, Volume 2--466 pages, Volume 3--221 pages and maps, Volume 4--378 pages and maps, Volume 5--173 pages and maps, Volume 6--479 pages and maps, March 27, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Bridges KW - Canals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Ships KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INNER+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CANAL+LOCK+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+ORLEANS%2C+ORLEANS+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+1997%29.&rft.title=INNER+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CANAL+LOCK+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+ORLEANS%2C+ORLEANS+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INNER HARBOR NAVIGATION CANAL LOCK REPLACEMENT PROJECT, NEW ORLEANS, ORLEANS PARISH, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 1997). AN - 36344500; 13821 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the navigation link between the Mississippi River in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet on the east side of the river is proposed. The navigational link between the Mississippi River and these waterways is the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal and Lock constructed by the Port of New Orleans in 1923 in order to provide navigation between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain, a distance of five miles, and to provide areas for industrial development. The lock is 75 feet wide and 640 feet long and has a sill depth of 31.5 mean low gulf. The lock has been operating at maximum capacity for a number of years, and vessel delays and congestion and closures at the lock are chronic problems. Delays are aggravated by three bridges that cross the canal in the vicinity of the lock. These bridges are closed to navigation traffic during rush hours for vehicular traffic. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of March 1997. In 2007, the Federal District Court for the Eastern New Orleans District enjoined the project and required the preparation of this supplemental EIS to describe changes in existing conditions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and to analyze impacts from the recommended plan and alternatives on these existing conditions. The plan tentatively selected in the 1997 EIS would involve the construction of a precast, floated-in, concrete lock 110 feet wide by 1,200 feet long with a depth of 36 feet. It would also include the replacement of the Saint Claude Avenue Bridge with a low-level double-bascule bridge, the replacement of the lift span and the raising of the towers on the Claiborne Avenue Bridge, and the implementation of a project mitigation plan. The selected 1997 Alternative, the No-Build/Deauthorization Plan Alternative, and two additional alternatives are considered in this supplemental EIS. The first new Alternative, known as the Cast-in-Place (CIP) plan, would be similar to the 1997 plan, except the CIP plan would provide for seven lock monoliths founded on piles with a cellular sheet pile cofferdam instead of floating monoliths down the canal to the new lock site. The second new Alternative, known as the Float-in-Place plan and constituting the recommended plan alternative, would also be similar to the 1997 plan. A temporary construction site would allow for lock module construction in dry conditions. Lock modules would be floated to the construction site via the canal. Additional evaluation has also refined the location and design of the confined contaminated dredge spoil disposal site, the locations and size of the off-site construction area, and the methods for disposal of clean dredge spoil. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement of lock operations would benefit industry and commercial navigation by providing a more efficient connection between the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The average annual net benefits are estimated at $58.3 million, and the ratio of average annual benefits to average annual costs is 1.91 to one. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The selected plan would adversely affect fish and wildlife habitat as a result of the development of the off-site construction area which would cause the loss of 25 freshwater wetland acres, although this loss would be mitigated by the restoration of 85 acres of wetlands in another location. In addition, this plan would cause traffic detours and congestion during the construction period, relocation of two businesses, job displacements, lost revenues for some local businesses, and construction noise in the vicinity of the canal. About three million cubic yards of dredged materials would be disposed of and a slight increase in the release of lock water would occur. Dredging activities would increase the river's sediment load in the Mississippi River by 27,000 tons per day. Vessel traffic would increase upon completion of the new lock. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0495D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0597D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 98-0056F, Volume 22, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090096, Volume 1--197 pages and maps, Volume 2--466 pages, Volume 3--221 pages and maps, Volume 4--378 pages and maps, Volume 5--173 pages and maps, Volume 6--479 pages and maps, March 27, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Bridges KW - Canals KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Ships KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INNER+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CANAL+LOCK+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+ORLEANS%2C+ORLEANS+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+1997%29.&rft.title=INNER+HARBOR+NAVIGATION+CANAL+LOCK+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEW+ORLEANS%2C+ORLEANS+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPSAIL BEACH INTERIM (EMERGENCY) BEACHFILL PROJECT PERMIT REQUEST, TOPSAIL BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2008). AN - 36344334; 13822 AB - PURPOSE: The placement of emergency beachfill along the shoreline of the community of Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS of March 2008 addressing the reevaluation and reformulation of the authorized shore protection project for West Onslow Beach and Topsail Beach. Topsail Beach is the southernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, a 22-mile barrier island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that the most practicable plan of protection for the primary study area would consist of a berm and dune project, with terminal transitions, extending along approximately five miles of the oceanfront. The plan recommended by the final EIS would provide for a sand dune constructed to an elevation of 12 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot-wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of seven feet above NVGD. The berm-and-dune projects extends along 23,200 feet, extending from 400 feet southwest of GODWIN Avenue to the Topsail Beach town limit. including 23,200 feet for the main fill and 2,000 feet for a transition fill at the north end of the project and 1,000 feet for a transition fill at the south end of the project. This final supplemental EIS addresses protection of Topsail Beach against recent damaging storms and continued extreme beach erosion that threaten 25 percent of the town's oceanfront properties. Given the potential delays associated with federal authorization and funding for the project as proposed in the final EIS, the town of Topsail Beach has determined that a one-time, interim beachfill is necessary to protect human safety and property and natural resources. The interim proposal would place sand on 4.7 miles of shoreline to protect the area dune complex, oceanfront development, and infrastructure from damaging storms and continued littoral beach erosion until the West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet federal shore protection project can be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing emergency protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach and dune fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-377), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 08-0406D, Volume 32, Number 4. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0468D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0401F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 09097, 1,189 pages and maps, CD-ROM, March 27, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Carolina KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPSAIL+BEACH+INTERIM+%28EMERGENCY%29+BEACHFILL+PROJECT+PERMIT+REQUEST%2C+TOPSAIL+BEACH%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2008%29.&rft.title=TOPSAIL+BEACH+INTERIM+%28EMERGENCY%29+BEACHFILL+PROJECT+PERMIT+REQUEST%2C+TOPSAIL+BEACH%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 27, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COLUMBIA EIS, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EAST COLUMBIA EIS, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756825060; 13817-090092_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway improvements in the area between Interstate 70 (I-70) south to New Haven Road, and U.S. Highway 63 (US 63) no hyphen between US and 63 east to Rangeline Road, eastern Columbia, Boone County, Missouri are proposed. The project area is generally rural, with subdivisions and scattered residential development. A small cluster of commercial development exists in the upper-northern portion of the study area, and several industrial businesses are located along Rangeline Road in the northeastern portion. The topography of the study area consists of gentle rolling hills dissected by numerous creeks, including Hominy Branch, Gans Creek, and the South and North Fork of Grindstone Creek. The population of Columbia and Boone County Increased substantially between 1990 and 2000 and the project area is considered prime development land as it is largely open, near the city center and major regional roadways, and suitable topographically. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the proposed Ballenger Lane extension and the connection between US-63 and I-70. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would extend Route 740 (Stadium Boulevard) as an expressway (a limited-access, four-lane divided highway) using a new alignment from the existing US-63 interchange to the St. Charles interchange at I-70. T-grade intersections would be required at Broadway (Route WW), Richland Road/Ballenger Lane and Grace Lane/St. Charles Road (existing). The project would also improve Route WW to a major arterial (a multiple-lane roadway with regulated driveway access, at-grade intersections and center median/turn lanes) extending from US-63 to approximately 200 feet west of Olivet Road. All existing intersections on Route WW would be maintained and the crossing of Grindstone Creek would involve realignment to eliminate a tight curve. Finally, the preferred alternative would include the probable extension of Ballenger Lane as a locally sponsored project. The extension would be a major arterial with an at-grade intersection with existing I-70 Southeast. Estimated construction cost of the preferred alternative is $132.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would reduce congestion and improve safety conditions and result in a roadway network appropriate for the future of eastern Columbia and Boone County with adequate continuity and linkages. The project would also create an eastern access point for Columbia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the roadway improvements would impact 0.6 acres of wetlands, 0.99 acres of ponds, 14,400 linear feet of streams, and 12 acres of floodplain. Thirty-seven structures would be displaced, including 15 residences. The Boone County Fire Station 12, an important community resource, would also be displaced. Total right-of-way acquisition would amount to approximately 275 acres. Short-term impacts would include the potential for erosion of soils exposed during construction and sedimentation in streams and wetlands. Long-term impacts would include altered stormwater runoff patterns due to additional pavement. 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: 090092, 211 pages and maps, March 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-02-D KW - Creeks KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/756825060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COLUMBIA EIS, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EAST COLUMBIA EIS, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756824835; 13817-090092_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway improvements in the area between Interstate 70 (I-70) south to New Haven Road, and U.S. Highway 63 (US 63) no hyphen between US and 63 east to Rangeline Road, eastern Columbia, Boone County, Missouri are proposed. The project area is generally rural, with subdivisions and scattered residential development. A small cluster of commercial development exists in the upper-northern portion of the study area, and several industrial businesses are located along Rangeline Road in the northeastern portion. The topography of the study area consists of gentle rolling hills dissected by numerous creeks, including Hominy Branch, Gans Creek, and the South and North Fork of Grindstone Creek. The population of Columbia and Boone County Increased substantially between 1990 and 2000 and the project area is considered prime development land as it is largely open, near the city center and major regional roadways, and suitable topographically. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the proposed Ballenger Lane extension and the connection between US-63 and I-70. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would extend Route 740 (Stadium Boulevard) as an expressway (a limited-access, four-lane divided highway) using a new alignment from the existing US-63 interchange to the St. Charles interchange at I-70. T-grade intersections would be required at Broadway (Route WW), Richland Road/Ballenger Lane and Grace Lane/St. Charles Road (existing). The project would also improve Route WW to a major arterial (a multiple-lane roadway with regulated driveway access, at-grade intersections and center median/turn lanes) extending from US-63 to approximately 200 feet west of Olivet Road. All existing intersections on Route WW would be maintained and the crossing of Grindstone Creek would involve realignment to eliminate a tight curve. Finally, the preferred alternative would include the probable extension of Ballenger Lane as a locally sponsored project. The extension would be a major arterial with an at-grade intersection with existing I-70 Southeast. Estimated construction cost of the preferred alternative is $132.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would reduce congestion and improve safety conditions and result in a roadway network appropriate for the future of eastern Columbia and Boone County with adequate continuity and linkages. The project would also create an eastern access point for Columbia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the roadway improvements would impact 0.6 acres of wetlands, 0.99 acres of ponds, 14,400 linear feet of streams, and 12 acres of floodplain. Thirty-seven structures would be displaced, including 15 residences. The Boone County Fire Station 12, an important community resource, would also be displaced. Total right-of-way acquisition would amount to approximately 275 acres. Short-term impacts would include the potential for erosion of soils exposed during construction and sedimentation in streams and wetlands. Long-term impacts would include altered stormwater runoff patterns due to additional pavement. 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: 090092, 211 pages and maps, March 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-02-D KW - Creeks KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/756824835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COLUMBIA EIS, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 36348626; 13817 AB - PURPOSE: Roadway improvements in the area between Interstate 70 (I-70) south to New Haven Road, and U.S. Highway 63 (US 63) no hyphen between US and 63 east to Rangeline Road, eastern Columbia, Boone County, Missouri are proposed. The project area is generally rural, with subdivisions and scattered residential development. A small cluster of commercial development exists in the upper-northern portion of the study area, and several industrial businesses are located along Rangeline Road in the northeastern portion. The topography of the study area consists of gentle rolling hills dissected by numerous creeks, including Hominy Branch, Gans Creek, and the South and North Fork of Grindstone Creek. The population of Columbia and Boone County Increased substantially between 1990 and 2000 and the project area is considered prime development land as it is largely open, near the city center and major regional roadways, and suitable topographically. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the proposed Ballenger Lane extension and the connection between US-63 and I-70. Six alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would extend Route 740 (Stadium Boulevard) as an expressway (a limited-access, four-lane divided highway) using a new alignment from the existing US-63 interchange to the St. Charles interchange at I-70. T-grade intersections would be required at Broadway (Route WW), Richland Road/Ballenger Lane and Grace Lane/St. Charles Road (existing). The project would also improve Route WW to a major arterial (a multiple-lane roadway with regulated driveway access, at-grade intersections and center median/turn lanes) extending from US-63 to approximately 200 feet west of Olivet Road. All existing intersections on Route WW would be maintained and the crossing of Grindstone Creek would involve realignment to eliminate a tight curve. Finally, the preferred alternative would include the probable extension of Ballenger Lane as a locally sponsored project. The extension would be a major arterial with an at-grade intersection with existing I-70 Southeast. Estimated construction cost of the preferred alternative is $132.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would reduce congestion and improve safety conditions and result in a roadway network appropriate for the future of eastern Columbia and Boone County with adequate continuity and linkages. The project would also create an eastern access point for Columbia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the roadway improvements would impact 0.6 acres of wetlands, 0.99 acres of ponds, 14,400 linear feet of streams, and 12 acres of floodplain. Thirty-seven structures would be displaced, including 15 residences. The Boone County Fire Station 12, an important community resource, would also be displaced. Total right-of-way acquisition would amount to approximately 275 acres. Short-term impacts would include the potential for erosion of soils exposed during construction and sedimentation in streams and wetlands. Long-term impacts would include altered stormwater runoff patterns due to additional pavement. 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: 090092, 211 pages and maps, March 26, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-02-D KW - Creeks KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/36348626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=EAST+COLUMBIA+EIS%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756825092; 13815-090090_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the United States inspection plaza at the Blue Water Bridge in the city and town of Port Huron St. Clair County, Michigan is proposed. The study corridor extends from the western end of the Blue Water bridge westward for 2.2 miles to the Interstate 94 (I-94)/I-69 interchange. The existing 18-acre Blue Water Bridge Plaza is elevated 24 feet above street level to accommodate Pine Grove Avenue, which runs beneath the facility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to effects of the project on the natural, human, and built environment including neighborhood and community cohesion, visual character, noise, air quality, and land use patterns. Practical alternatives include expanding the existing plaza and relocating major functions of the plaza approximately 1.5 miles from the existing facility, with a secured corridor connecting the existing plaza to the new portion of the plaza. Two alternatives are presented in this final EIS. The No Build alternative would not make any changes to the existing plaza configuration or ramps. The recommended alternative incorporates design modifications from the draft EIS City West Alternative (the preferred alternative) and would encompass a 131-acre tract to provide for an expanded plaza and improvements along the I-94/I-69 corridor, including a welcome center and 56-acre plaza. Pine Grove Avenue would be relocated to wrap around the south and west sides of the plaza. The block bounded by Tenth Avenue, Hancock Street, the Michigan 25 Connector, and the existing plaza for expanded inspection and plaza space. The project would include the reconstruction of the Black River Bridge to expand it from four to nine lanes and reconstruct the Water Street Bridge. The Lapeer Connecter interchange would be expanded to include access in all directions. A new Michigan Department of Transportation Welcome Center would be constructed north of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron Township, replacing the existing center at Water Street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facilities would accommodate plaza traffic growth through the year 2030; provide space for future plaza facility additions and new inspection technologies, reduce traffic backups on I-94/I/69, the Blue Water Bridge, and Highway 402 in Canada; improve safety on the Blue Water Bridge; and minimize impacts to plaza traffic on local roads. The new facilities could encourage commercial redevelopment of land north of Hancock Street. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of a significant portion of the neighborhood south of the existing plaza and 13 homes in the neighborhood northeast of the plaza; in all, 125 residences would be relocated. A church relocation and 30 business displacements would also be unavoidable. The E.C. Williams House, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be displaced as well. The inspection station and related facilities would lie within a non-attainment area for airborne particulate matter. Traffic-generated noise would approach or exceed federal standards at 45 residences, four businesses, and at one park site. The facilities would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter some or all of the 20 hazardous waste sites that lie within the study area. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0440D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090090, 766 pages and maps, March 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Border Stations KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/756825092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824753; 13815-090090_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the United States inspection plaza at the Blue Water Bridge in the city and town of Port Huron St. Clair County, Michigan is proposed. The study corridor extends from the western end of the Blue Water bridge westward for 2.2 miles to the Interstate 94 (I-94)/I-69 interchange. The existing 18-acre Blue Water Bridge Plaza is elevated 24 feet above street level to accommodate Pine Grove Avenue, which runs beneath the facility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to effects of the project on the natural, human, and built environment including neighborhood and community cohesion, visual character, noise, air quality, and land use patterns. Practical alternatives include expanding the existing plaza and relocating major functions of the plaza approximately 1.5 miles from the existing facility, with a secured corridor connecting the existing plaza to the new portion of the plaza. Two alternatives are presented in this final EIS. The No Build alternative would not make any changes to the existing plaza configuration or ramps. The recommended alternative incorporates design modifications from the draft EIS City West Alternative (the preferred alternative) and would encompass a 131-acre tract to provide for an expanded plaza and improvements along the I-94/I-69 corridor, including a welcome center and 56-acre plaza. Pine Grove Avenue would be relocated to wrap around the south and west sides of the plaza. The block bounded by Tenth Avenue, Hancock Street, the Michigan 25 Connector, and the existing plaza for expanded inspection and plaza space. The project would include the reconstruction of the Black River Bridge to expand it from four to nine lanes and reconstruct the Water Street Bridge. The Lapeer Connecter interchange would be expanded to include access in all directions. A new Michigan Department of Transportation Welcome Center would be constructed north of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron Township, replacing the existing center at Water Street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facilities would accommodate plaza traffic growth through the year 2030; provide space for future plaza facility additions and new inspection technologies, reduce traffic backups on I-94/I/69, the Blue Water Bridge, and Highway 402 in Canada; improve safety on the Blue Water Bridge; and minimize impacts to plaza traffic on local roads. The new facilities could encourage commercial redevelopment of land north of Hancock Street. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of a significant portion of the neighborhood south of the existing plaza and 13 homes in the neighborhood northeast of the plaza; in all, 125 residences would be relocated. A church relocation and 30 business displacements would also be unavoidable. The E.C. Williams House, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be displaced as well. The inspection station and related facilities would lie within a non-attainment area for airborne particulate matter. Traffic-generated noise would approach or exceed federal standards at 45 residences, four businesses, and at one park site. The facilities would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter some or all of the 20 hazardous waste sites that lie within the study area. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0440D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090090, 766 pages and maps, March 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Border Stations KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/756824753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824742; 13815-090090_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the United States inspection plaza at the Blue Water Bridge in the city and town of Port Huron St. Clair County, Michigan is proposed. The study corridor extends from the western end of the Blue Water bridge westward for 2.2 miles to the Interstate 94 (I-94)/I-69 interchange. The existing 18-acre Blue Water Bridge Plaza is elevated 24 feet above street level to accommodate Pine Grove Avenue, which runs beneath the facility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to effects of the project on the natural, human, and built environment including neighborhood and community cohesion, visual character, noise, air quality, and land use patterns. Practical alternatives include expanding the existing plaza and relocating major functions of the plaza approximately 1.5 miles from the existing facility, with a secured corridor connecting the existing plaza to the new portion of the plaza. Two alternatives are presented in this final EIS. The No Build alternative would not make any changes to the existing plaza configuration or ramps. The recommended alternative incorporates design modifications from the draft EIS City West Alternative (the preferred alternative) and would encompass a 131-acre tract to provide for an expanded plaza and improvements along the I-94/I-69 corridor, including a welcome center and 56-acre plaza. Pine Grove Avenue would be relocated to wrap around the south and west sides of the plaza. The block bounded by Tenth Avenue, Hancock Street, the Michigan 25 Connector, and the existing plaza for expanded inspection and plaza space. The project would include the reconstruction of the Black River Bridge to expand it from four to nine lanes and reconstruct the Water Street Bridge. The Lapeer Connecter interchange would be expanded to include access in all directions. A new Michigan Department of Transportation Welcome Center would be constructed north of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron Township, replacing the existing center at Water Street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facilities would accommodate plaza traffic growth through the year 2030; provide space for future plaza facility additions and new inspection technologies, reduce traffic backups on I-94/I/69, the Blue Water Bridge, and Highway 402 in Canada; improve safety on the Blue Water Bridge; and minimize impacts to plaza traffic on local roads. The new facilities could encourage commercial redevelopment of land north of Hancock Street. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of a significant portion of the neighborhood south of the existing plaza and 13 homes in the neighborhood northeast of the plaza; in all, 125 residences would be relocated. A church relocation and 30 business displacements would also be unavoidable. The E.C. Williams House, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be displaced as well. The inspection station and related facilities would lie within a non-attainment area for airborne particulate matter. Traffic-generated noise would approach or exceed federal standards at 45 residences, four businesses, and at one park site. The facilities would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter some or all of the 20 hazardous waste sites that lie within the study area. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0440D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090090, 766 pages and maps, March 25, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Border Stations KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/756824742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE WATER BRIDGE PLAZA STUDY, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 36346891; 13815 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the United States inspection plaza at the Blue Water Bridge in the city and town of Port Huron St. Clair County, Michigan is proposed. The study corridor extends from the western end of the Blue Water bridge westward for 2.2 miles to the Interstate 94 (I-94)/I-69 interchange. The existing 18-acre Blue Water Bridge Plaza is elevated 24 feet above street level to accommodate Pine Grove Avenue, which runs beneath the facility. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to effects of the project on the natural, human, and built environment including neighborhood and community cohesion, visual character, noise, air quality, and land use patterns. Practical alternatives include expanding the existing plaza and relocating major functions of the plaza approximately 1.5 miles from the existing facility, with a secured corridor connecting the existing plaza to the new portion of the plaza. Two alternatives are presented in this final EIS. The No Build alternative would not make any changes to the existing plaza configuration or ramps. The recommended alternative incorporates design modifications from the draft EIS City West Alternative (the preferred alternative) and would encompass a 131-acre tract to provide for an expanded plaza and improvements along the I-94/I-69 corridor, including a welcome center and 56-acre plaza. Pine Grove Avenue would be relocated to wrap around the south and west sides of the plaza. The block bounded by Tenth Avenue, Hancock Street, the Michigan 25 Connector, and the existing plaza for expanded inspection and plaza space. The project would include the reconstruction of the Black River Bridge to expand it from four to nine lanes and reconstruct the Water Street Bridge. The Lapeer Connecter interchange would be expanded to include access in all directions. A new Michigan Department of Transportation Welcome Center would be constructed north of I-94/I-69 in Port Huron Township, replacing the existing center at Water Street. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facilities would accommodate plaza traffic growth through the year 2030; provide space for future plaza facility additions and new inspection technologies, reduce traffic backups on I-94/I/69, the Blue Water Bridge, and Highway 402 in Canada; improve safety on the Blue Water Bridge; and minimize impacts to plaza traffic on local roads. The new facilities could encourage commercial redevelopment of land north of Hancock Street. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of a significant portion of the neighborhood south of the existing plaza and 13 homes in the neighborhood northeast of the plaza; in all, 125 residences would be relocated. A church relocation and 30 business displacements would also be unavoidable. The E.C. Williams House, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be displaced as well. The inspection station and related facilities would lie within a non-attainment area for airborne particulate matter. Traffic-generated noise would approach or exceed federal standards at 45 residences, four businesses, and at one park site. The facilities would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Construction workers would encounter some or all of the 20 hazardous waste sites that lie within the study area. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0440D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 090090, 766 pages and maps, March 25, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-07-02-F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Border Stations KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Facilities KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - International Programs KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Renewal KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts 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/36346891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=BLUE+WATER+BRIDGE+PLAZA+STUDY%2C+ST.+CLAIR+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 25, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Treatment of nitric acid-, U(VI)-, and Tc(VII)-contaminated groundwater in intermediate-scale physical models of an in situ biobarrier. AN - 67142223; 19368198 AB - Metal and hydrogen ion acidity and extreme nitrate concentrations at Department of Energy legacywaste sites pose challenges for successful in situ U and Tc bioimmobilization. In this study, we investigated a potential in situ biobarrier configuration designed to neutralize pH and remove nitrate and radionuclides from nitric acid-, U-, and Tc-contaminated groundwater for over 21 months. Ethanol additions to groundwater flowing through native sediment and crushed limestone effectively increased pH (from 4.7 to 6.9), promoted removal of 116 mM nitrate, increased sediment biomass, and immobilized 94% of total U. Increased groundwater pH and significant U removal was also observed in a control column that received no added ethanol. Sequential extraction and XANES analyses showed U in this sediment to be solid-associated U(VI), and EXAFS analysis results were consistent with uranyl orthophosphate (UO2)3(PO4)2.4H2O(s), which may control U solubility in this system. Ratios of respiratory ubiquinones to menaquinones and copies of dissimilatory nitrite reductase genes, nirS and nirK, were at least 1 order of magnitude greater in the ethanol-stimulated system compared to the control, indicating that ethanol addition promoted growth of a largely denitrifying microbial community. Sediment 16S rRNA gene clone libraries showed that Betaproteobacteria were dominant (89%) near the source of influent acidic groundwater, whereas members of Gamma- and Alphaproteobacteria and Bacteroidetes increased along the flow path as pH increased and nitrate concentrations decreased, indicating spatial shifts in community composition as a function of pH and nitrate concentrations. Results of this study support the utility of biobarriers for treating acidic radionuclide- and nitrate-contaminated groundwater. JF - Environmental science & technology AU - Michalsen, Mandy M AU - Peacock, Aaron D AU - Smithgal, Amanda N AU - White, David C AU - Spain, Anne M AU - Sanchez-Rosario, Yamil AU - Krumholz, Lee R AU - Kelly, Shelly D AU - Kemner, Kenneth M AU - McKinley, James AU - Heald, Steve M AU - Bogle, Mary Anna AU - Watson, David B AU - Istok, Jonathan D AD - Environmental Engineering & Technology Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington 98134, USA. mandy.m.michalsen@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/03/15/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Mar 15 SP - 1952 EP - 1961 VL - 43 IS - 6 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants, Radioactive KW - Nitric Acid KW - 411VRN1TV4 KW - Uranium KW - 4OC371KSTK KW - Technetium KW - 7440-26-8 KW - Index Medicus KW - Molecular Structure KW - Water Pollutants, Radioactive -- chemistry KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- chemistry KW - Models, Molecular KW - Water Microbiology KW - Geologic Sediments KW - Water Supply -- analysis KW - Technetium -- chemistry KW - Uranium -- chemistry KW - Models, Chemical KW - Nitric Acid -- chemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67142223?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.atitle=Treatment+of+nitric+acid-%2C+U%28VI%29-%2C+and+Tc%28VII%29-contaminated+groundwater+in+intermediate-scale+physical+models+of+an+in+situ+biobarrier.&rft.au=Michalsen%2C+Mandy+M%3BPeacock%2C+Aaron+D%3BSmithgal%2C+Amanda+N%3BWhite%2C+David+C%3BSpain%2C+Anne+M%3BSanchez-Rosario%2C+Yamil%3BKrumholz%2C+Lee+R%3BKelly%2C+Shelly+D%3BKemner%2C+Kenneth+M%3BMcKinley%2C+James%3BHeald%2C+Steve+M%3BBogle%2C+Mary+Anna%3BWatson%2C+David+B%3BIstok%2C+Jonathan+D&rft.aulast=Michalsen&rft.aufirst=Mandy&rft.date=2009-03-15&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1952&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-05-11 N1 - Date created - 2009-04-16 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - United States Army Corps of Engineers' Role in Supporting the Nation and Its Infrastructure T2 - 2009 International Foundations Congress and Equipment Exposition (IFCEE 2009) AN - 41896820; 5097463 JF - 2009 International Foundations Congress and Equipment Exposition (IFCEE 2009) AU - Riley, Don Y1 - 2009/03/15/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Mar 15 KW - USA KW - Infrastructure KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41896820?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2009+International+Foundations+Congress+and+Equipment+Exposition+%28IFCEE+2009%29&rft.atitle=United+States+Army+Corps+of+Engineers%27+Role+in+Supporting+the+Nation+and+Its+Infrastructure&rft.au=Riley%2C+Don&rft.aulast=Riley&rft.aufirst=Don&rft.date=2009-03-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2009+International+Foundations+Congress+and+Equipment+Exposition+%28IFCEE+2009%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.ifcee09.org/files/public/IFCEE09Program_022309_pm.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756825129; 13796-090071_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste 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: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic 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/756825129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756825082; 13796-090071_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste 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: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic 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/756825082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CLEVELAND INNERBELT PROJECT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 756824863; 13796-090071_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Cleveland Innerbelt Freeway system infrastructure in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are proposed. The freeway system provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system Interstate 70 (I-70), I-77, State Route (SR) 2, I-490, and SR 176). The facility also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways within the Cleveland Central Business District. The system is currently affected by operational, design, safety, and access shortcomings that severely impact the system's ability to function at an acceptable level. Project termini are located at the merge/diverge point of SR 176 (Jennings Freeway) and I-71 southwest of downtown Cleveland, south of ht existing I-90/I-77 central interchange on I-77 south to the Pershing Avenue local partial interchange south of downtown, and east of the I-90/DR 2 interchange east of downtown along the shore of Lake Erie and adjacent to the Burke Lakefront Airport. Within the project limits, I-90 crosses the expansive Cuyahoga River Valley. The central viaduct major deck truss bridge facilitates the I-90 crossing of the valley with connections to I-71 and I-90 within the historic Tremont area on the west side and with connections to the I-90/I-77 central interchange adjacent to the Cleveland Indian's Major League Baseball facility to the east. In addition to the main freeway system work, the project would redesign 25, redirect 9, and relocate or eliminate one of the 35 access points and reconfigure and/or redesign 19 cross streets. This draft EIS considers two build alternatives and a N-Build Alternative. Depending on the options chosen, cost of the project is estimated at $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion. Alternative A, which would follow a northern alignment, would provide for full depth pavement replacement, widening where necessary to address capacity or lane continuity, 35 new mainline ramp and overhead bridges, and 16 mainline and ramp deck replacements. The alternative would include the construction of a new bridge north of the existing Central Viaduct to carry westbound traffic and the replacement of the existing Viaduct on essentially its existing alignment to accommodate eastbound traffic. The new westbound bridge across the Cuyahoga Valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,028-foot western approach and a 3,371-foot eastern approach. Alternative B would be generally identical to Alternative A, except that it would follow a southern alignment and the bridge across the Cayahoga Valley would differ in design. The new westbound bridge across the valley would have a main span length of 900 feet, with a 1,041-foot western approach and a 3,031-foot eastern approach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would rehabilitate deteriorating bridges, mainline pavements, interchanges, and overpasses and underpasses and rectify design features that do not meet current interstate standards. The number of existing design deficiencies would be reduced from 131 to six and locations that lack full shoulders would be reduced from 11 to three. Inadequate ramp configurations would decline from 34 to none. Vertical clearance deficiencies would be ameliorated at all 21 locations currently affected by this design flaw. The improved system would more efficiently collect and distribute traffic between the interstate system, the radial freeway, and downtown Cleveland. Peak period performance of the freeway system, in particularly, would be significantly improved. Visual aesthetics, particularly views of Lake Erie, would be enhanced significantly by freeway design. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the taking of commercial and industrial land as well as all of portions of certain historically significant resources, including Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and Terminal Warehouse under alternative A and Broadway Mills, the Marathon Gas Station, and the Tremont National Register Historic District under Alternative B. Through future traffic-level noise levels would increase only slightly, hundreds of sensitive receptor sites currently experience noise levels in excess of federal standards would continue to experience excessive noise; noise barriers would successfully mitigate noise in some areas. Construction workers would encounter 18 to 23 hazardous waste 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: 090071, 366 pages (oversize, March 11, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-09-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Ohio KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic 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/756824863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CLEVELAND+INNERBELT+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+CLEVELAND%2C+CUYAHOGA+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 9 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825285; 13792-090067_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 6 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825278; 13792-090067_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 2 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825276; 13792-090067_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 1 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825274; 13792-090067_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 8 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825179; 13792-090067_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 7 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756825172; 13792-090067_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 5 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756824876; 13792-090067_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 4 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756824862; 13792-090067_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). [Part 3 of 9] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 756824852; 13792-090067_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2005). AN - 16388014; 13792 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and eight build alternatives are considered in this supplemental draft EIS which includes additional hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for all build alternatives; additional mapping and analysis of potential impacts to vegetation and wetlands; and discussion of electronic toll collection. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and south termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45, respectively. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 27 to 272 commercial units and up to 11 community/public facilities and 270 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 53 to 418 acres of floodplain and displace up to 111 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to six historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and stormwater runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.); Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.); and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0419D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090067, Volume 1--591 pages and maps, Volume 2--788 pages and maps, March 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16388014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Fabrication of Conical Nanopores for the Study of Transport Phenomena of Small Organic Molecules - An Electrochemical Study T2 - 60th Pittsburgh Conference and Expo on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy (Pittcon 2009) AN - 41791606; 5040543 JF - 60th Pittsburgh Conference and Expo on Analytical Chemistry and Applied Spectroscopy (Pittcon 2009) AU - Pamidighantam, Bharathi AU - Dalavoy, Tulika AU - Cropek, Donald Y1 - 2009/03/08/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Mar 08 KW - Electrochemistry KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41791606?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=60th+Pittsburgh+Conference+and+Expo+on+Analytical+Chemistry+and+Applied+Spectroscopy+%28Pittcon+2009%29&rft.atitle=Fabrication+of+Conical+Nanopores+for+the+Study+of+Transport+Phenomena+of+Small+Organic+Molecules+-+An+Electrochemical+Study&rft.au=Pamidighantam%2C+Bharathi%3BDalavoy%2C+Tulika%3BCropek%2C+Donald&rft.aulast=Pamidighantam&rft.aufirst=Bharathi&rft.date=2009-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=60th+Pittsburgh+Conference+and+Expo+on+Analytical+Chemistry+and+Applied+Spectroscopy+%28Pittcon+2009%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.pittcon.org/technical/finalprogram.html LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756825508; 13790-090065_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756825275; 13790-090065_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825255; 13789-090064_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756825225; 13790-090065_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825170; 13789-090064_0003 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825097; 13789-090064_0002 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825097?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756825062; 13790-090065_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825039; 13789-090064_0006 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825031; 13789-090064_0004 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 756824978; 13790-090065_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824957; 13789-090064_0007 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824948; 13789-090064_0005 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16378961; 13789 AB - PURPOSE: An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system service in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (SVRTC) beyond the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont, California is proposed. The SVRTC extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, covering approximately 100 square miles. Construction of the project is intended to improve public transit service in a severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity, enhanced regional connectivity, increased transit ridership and improved mobility options. Key issues identified during scoping include traffic, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The two Build Alternatives are dependent on the completion of the BART Warm Springs Extension Project. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRTP) Alternative (the preferred alternative) would consist of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the city of Milpitas to south of Marbury Road in San Jose. The extension would then descend into a 5.1 mile-long subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations would be constructed (Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Dirdon/Arena, and Santa Clara) and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard would be constructed at the terminus in Santa Clara. Passenger service for the SVRTP Alternative would start in 2018 and ridership is projected to be approximately 98,750 by 2030. The Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative would consist of a 9.9-mile extension of the BART system beginning at the approved BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceeding on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to near Las Plumas Avenue in San Jose. Two stations would be constructed (Milpitas and Berryessa) and passenger service would start in 2018 with ridership projected to be approximately 46,450 in 2030. Two Santa Clara County voter-approved tax spending measures, supplemented by $750 million in Federal Transit Administration New Starts funding and $240 million in state of California funds, would form the foundation for the capital and operating financial plan for the proposed BEP and SVRTP alternatives. Capital costs for the SVRTP Alternative would be $5.2 billion in 2008 dollars or $6.4 billion in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars. Operating and maintenance costs would include net costs for non-BART service of $405 million in 2008 dollars or $916 million in YOE dollars and net costs of BART service of $63.2 million in 2008 dollars or $117 million in YOE dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed extension would provide a new link in the regional rail network and direct access to the central business district of the region's largest city, San Jose, and into the core employment area of Silicon Valley. Improved transit in the SVRTC would be consistent with plans and policies established by the cities of Milpitas, San Jose and Santa Clara for transit-oriented development and would improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions. Overall energy use would be reduced by an estimated 400 billion British Thermal Units. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Up to 1.4 acres of riparian forest along Upper Penitencia Creek would be affected by the design of the Berryessa Station. Approximately 0.56 acres of wetlands would be affected by right-of-way drainage improvements. Construction would have potential impact to burrowing owls, nesting raptors and swallows, roosting bats, red-legged frogs and western pond turtles. Implementation of the project would alter up to four buildings in the San Jose Downtown Commercial Historic District and the historic Santa Clara Caltrain would be affected. Severe noise and vibration would impact 146 to 168 residential units, and approximately 425 residents would remain exposed to excessive noise. A total of 157 to 172 single-family residences and 36 to 40 multi-family residences would be impacted by ground-borne vibration. In addition, 77 to 104 businesses, 3-23 residential units, and one community facility would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090064, Draft EIS--1,451 pages, Appendices--521 pages, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Urban Development KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16378961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%2C+SANTA+CLARA+COUNTY%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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER, TOWNS OF APEX, CARY, AND MORRISVILLE, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16375783; 13790 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville and disposal facilities for these towns and the town of Holly Springs, all in Wake County, North Carolina, are proposed. These partners are working collaboratively to meet wastewater needs resulting from projected population growth and the associated increase in land development in western Wake County. The required maximum monthly wastewater capacity for the three towns for which the treatment facilities is estimated at 62 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition to the need for greater wastewater treatment capacity, the project is required to adhere to a regulatory mandate issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission requiring interbasin transfer of water by the towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The mandate requires the towns to return water to the Haw or Cape Fear River basin after 2010. Under the proposed action, the partners, collectively known as the Western Wake Partners, would provide for a regional water system, including a 30-mgd (mgd) water reclamation facility (WRF) to serve the towns of Apex, Cary, and Mirrisville and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle park. The WRF would discharge into the cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam via a 38-mgd outfall that would be shared by the town of Holly Springs. Of the 62 mgd capacity expected to be necessary in 2030, 24 mgd would be discharged at existing permitted outfalls, while the remaining 38 mgd would be pumped, conveyed, and discharged by the proposed facilities to a new outfall location along the Cape Fear River, which will also be used by the town of Holly Springs. In addition to the WRF, project facilities would include gravity sewers, force mains, and pump stations to convey wastewater to the WRF and effluent to outfall. In addition to the proposed action and the No Action Alternative, alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include wastewater management options. wastewater discharge options, WRF site alternatives, conveyance alternatives, and wastewater outfall options. The proposed project and three feasible alternatives are considered in detail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed WRF would meet existing and forecast demand in the service area, supporting a projected population of 432,250 in 2030. In addition to providing additional wastewater treatment capacity, the new facilities would address the abovementioned regulatory mandate regarding an interbasin transfer and realize the State Department of Natural Resources recommendation to remove Holly Springs' wastewater discharge from Utley Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would displace wetlands and riparian land, and WRF and outfall systems operation would affect riverine hydrology and hydraulics. The WRF would displace forested land and residentially zoned land. Alternative WRF sites would displace agricultural land. Grading at the WRF site would alter site topography and other aesthetic values and destroy vegetative cover and the associated wildlife habitat. Operation of the WRF would raise ambient noise and odor somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090065, 461 pages and maps, March 6, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Wastes KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+REGIONAL+WASTEWATER%2C+TOWNS+OF+APEX%2C+CARY%2C+AND+MORRISVILLE%2C+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 6, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UC MERCED AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PROJECT, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - UC MERCED AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PROJECT, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824704; 13785-090060_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the University of California, Merced and University Community Project in Merced County, California is proposed. The project consists of the development of a major research university that would support up to 25,000 fulltime equivalent students, along with a contiguous community to support the university. The campus would occupy an 815-acre site and the adjacent University Community would occupy 1,951 acres, divided into a 833-acre Community North and a 1,118-acre Community South. The overall project site lies in eastern Merced County, approximately two miles northeast of the Merced City limits. More specifically, the site lies south-southeast of Lake Yosemite Regional park and east of Lake Road. Yosemite Avenue forms the southern project site boundary. Key issues identified during scoping are those associated with the conversion off prime farmland, impacts to groundwater and surface water quality, water consumption and water supply infrastructure impacts, alteration of stormwater drainage patterns, traffic and road safety, unintended induced growth, energy use, air pollutant emissions and related climate change impacts, and impacts to wetlands, aquatic resources, and other biological resources. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 5) would result from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denying a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, to allow project implementation. The No-Build Alternative (Alternative 6) would assume that no construction at all would occur on the project site, regardless of whether the permit is issued; no campus facilities would be developed beyond those already present on a 104-acre tract within the site. The proposed Action (Alternative 1) would provide for the aforementioned full research university campus and community development. In addition to the usual research university facilities, the campus would include a 1,307-acre Campus Natural Reserve that would not be developed. The associated community development would include a town center, business park, residential neighborhoods, parks, open space, schools, and other amenities, The University Community would provide 11,616 dwelling units, supporting a total residential population of 30,780 persons. In addition to numerous other environmental enhancement commitments, the university and Merced County would acquire easements over 26,600 acres in the eastern portion of the County to mitigate for displaced wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a premier research university in a theretofore underserved San Joaquin Valley in furtherance of the University of California's mission of teaching, research, and public service excellence. The related long-range development plan would guide the orderly physical planning and development of a new university campus, thereby help meet state enrollment demand, serve historically under-represented populations, model environmental stewardship for the rest of the state, minimize development costs, maximize academic distinction, and create an efficient and vital teaching and learning environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The university and community development would displace seasonal grazing rangeland and farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, as well as wetland and the associated wildlife habitat. Nesting habitat for special status avian species would result. The Merced River would be diverted to recharge groundwater, but no adverse impact on fish habitat would result. Archaeological, historic, and paleontological resource sites could be disturbed or inadvertently destroyed. The project site would lie within an area characterized by substantial seismic risk and potentially encompassing hazardous waste sites. Construction-related air pollutant emissions would violate government standards. Once established, the university and community would result in cumulative increases of criteria pollutants in an area already in nonattainment status with respect to federal and state air quality standards. Visual aesthetics in a largely rural area would be altered drastically, including the intrusion of substantial nightly light and glare. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090060, 488 pages, March 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Drainage KW - Farmlands KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Housing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Livestock KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Universities KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UC MERCED AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PROJECT, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - UC MERCED AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PROJECT, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824695; 13785-090060_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the University of California, Merced and University Community Project in Merced County, California is proposed. The project consists of the development of a major research university that would support up to 25,000 fulltime equivalent students, along with a contiguous community to support the university. The campus would occupy an 815-acre site and the adjacent University Community would occupy 1,951 acres, divided into a 833-acre Community North and a 1,118-acre Community South. The overall project site lies in eastern Merced County, approximately two miles northeast of the Merced City limits. More specifically, the site lies south-southeast of Lake Yosemite Regional park and east of Lake Road. Yosemite Avenue forms the southern project site boundary. Key issues identified during scoping are those associated with the conversion off prime farmland, impacts to groundwater and surface water quality, water consumption and water supply infrastructure impacts, alteration of stormwater drainage patterns, traffic and road safety, unintended induced growth, energy use, air pollutant emissions and related climate change impacts, and impacts to wetlands, aquatic resources, and other biological resources. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 5) would result from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denying a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, to allow project implementation. The No-Build Alternative (Alternative 6) would assume that no construction at all would occur on the project site, regardless of whether the permit is issued; no campus facilities would be developed beyond those already present on a 104-acre tract within the site. The proposed Action (Alternative 1) would provide for the aforementioned full research university campus and community development. In addition to the usual research university facilities, the campus would include a 1,307-acre Campus Natural Reserve that would not be developed. The associated community development would include a town center, business park, residential neighborhoods, parks, open space, schools, and other amenities, The University Community would provide 11,616 dwelling units, supporting a total residential population of 30,780 persons. In addition to numerous other environmental enhancement commitments, the university and Merced County would acquire easements over 26,600 acres in the eastern portion of the County to mitigate for displaced wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a premier research university in a theretofore underserved San Joaquin Valley in furtherance of the University of California's mission of teaching, research, and public service excellence. The related long-range development plan would guide the orderly physical planning and development of a new university campus, thereby help meet state enrollment demand, serve historically under-represented populations, model environmental stewardship for the rest of the state, minimize development costs, maximize academic distinction, and create an efficient and vital teaching and learning environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The university and community development would displace seasonal grazing rangeland and farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, as well as wetland and the associated wildlife habitat. Nesting habitat for special status avian species would result. The Merced River would be diverted to recharge groundwater, but no adverse impact on fish habitat would result. Archaeological, historic, and paleontological resource sites could be disturbed or inadvertently destroyed. The project site would lie within an area characterized by substantial seismic risk and potentially encompassing hazardous waste sites. Construction-related air pollutant emissions would violate government standards. Once established, the university and community would result in cumulative increases of criteria pollutants in an area already in nonattainment status with respect to federal and state air quality standards. Visual aesthetics in a largely rural area would be altered drastically, including the intrusion of substantial nightly light and glare. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090060, 488 pages, March 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Drainage KW - Farmlands KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Housing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Livestock KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Universities KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UC MERCED AND UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PROJECT, MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16377771; 13785 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the University of California, Merced and University Community Project in Merced County, California is proposed. The project consists of the development of a major research university that would support up to 25,000 fulltime equivalent students, along with a contiguous community to support the university. The campus would occupy an 815-acre site and the adjacent University Community would occupy 1,951 acres, divided into a 833-acre Community North and a 1,118-acre Community South. The overall project site lies in eastern Merced County, approximately two miles northeast of the Merced City limits. More specifically, the site lies south-southeast of Lake Yosemite Regional park and east of Lake Road. Yosemite Avenue forms the southern project site boundary. Key issues identified during scoping are those associated with the conversion off prime farmland, impacts to groundwater and surface water quality, water consumption and water supply infrastructure impacts, alteration of stormwater drainage patterns, traffic and road safety, unintended induced growth, energy use, air pollutant emissions and related climate change impacts, and impacts to wetlands, aquatic resources, and other biological resources. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 5) would result from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denying a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, to allow project implementation. The No-Build Alternative (Alternative 6) would assume that no construction at all would occur on the project site, regardless of whether the permit is issued; no campus facilities would be developed beyond those already present on a 104-acre tract within the site. The proposed Action (Alternative 1) would provide for the aforementioned full research university campus and community development. In addition to the usual research university facilities, the campus would include a 1,307-acre Campus Natural Reserve that would not be developed. The associated community development would include a town center, business park, residential neighborhoods, parks, open space, schools, and other amenities, The University Community would provide 11,616 dwelling units, supporting a total residential population of 30,780 persons. In addition to numerous other environmental enhancement commitments, the university and Merced County would acquire easements over 26,600 acres in the eastern portion of the County to mitigate for displaced wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would develop a premier research university in a theretofore underserved San Joaquin Valley in furtherance of the University of California's mission of teaching, research, and public service excellence. The related long-range development plan would guide the orderly physical planning and development of a new university campus, thereby help meet state enrollment demand, serve historically under-represented populations, model environmental stewardship for the rest of the state, minimize development costs, maximize academic distinction, and create an efficient and vital teaching and learning environment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The university and community development would displace seasonal grazing rangeland and farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, as well as wetland and the associated wildlife habitat. Nesting habitat for special status avian species would result. The Merced River would be diverted to recharge groundwater, but no adverse impact on fish habitat would result. Archaeological, historic, and paleontological resource sites could be disturbed or inadvertently destroyed. The project site would lie within an area characterized by substantial seismic risk and potentially encompassing hazardous waste sites. Construction-related air pollutant emissions would violate government standards. Once established, the university and community would result in cumulative increases of criteria pollutants in an area already in nonattainment status with respect to federal and state air quality standards. Visual aesthetics in a largely rural area would be altered drastically, including the intrusion of substantial nightly light and glare. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090060, 488 pages, March 2, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Community Development KW - Conservation KW - Conservation Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Drainage KW - Farmlands KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Housing KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Livestock KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Ranges KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Universities KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16377771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UC+MERCED+AND+UNIVERSITY+COMMUNITY+PROJECT%2C+MERCED+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Do Texas groundwater conservation districts matter AN - 50226988; 2009-084830 AB - As of 2006, Texas was patchworked with 84 confirmed groundwater conservation districts covering just under 60 percent of the state, many covering only single counties. GCDs are authorized under Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code to regulate groundwater production through "well spacing and production limits." This research attempts to address the effectiveness of the state's groundwater conservation districts by: 1) Determining whether or not groundwater districts impact depletion rates, 2) Determining exactly what it is that districts do that makes a difference, and, 3) Determining whether changing the state-wide appropriation regime could improve groundwater depletion rates. Utilizing a panel data set of 8,110 "observation" wells compiled from TWDB data, the natural log of the average annual depth of groundwater is derived from water level measurements to represent the depletion rate and used as the dependent variable in a series of fixed effects equations. For the first objective, I find evidence suggesting that GCDs do impact depletion rates, both beneficially or detrimentally. For the second objective, an expanded equation adding control variables for hydrologic factors, population, agricultural activity, oil and natural gas production, and water-use data to address the "mass balance" of aquifers are added. For policy evaluation, dummy variables representing the most prevalent forms of production regulations utilized by GCDs under Chapter 36 of the Water Code including spacing and density requirements, production limitations, and permit requirements are also added. Evidence suggests that some types of rules have beneficial impacts on depletion rates while others may actually exacerbate groundwater depletion. This fixed-effects equation is run on a state-wide basis and also by GMA and regional water planning group (RWPG). For the third objective, production regulation variables are replaced with those representing appropriation regimes utilized by the specific districts (i.e. rule of capture, correlative rights, reasonable use, or prior appropriation) to evaluate these regimes using data specific to Texas. Here we find that the reasonable use and the prior appropriation doctrines show to be the most beneficial to groundwater depletion rates. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Foster, Jodie R AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 8 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 41 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - water use KW - United States KW - conservation KW - mass balance KW - water management KW - observation wells KW - Texas KW - water resources KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50226988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Do+Texas+groundwater+conservation+districts+matter&rft.au=Foster%2C+Jodie+R%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Foster&rft.aufirst=Jodie&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 43rd annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; conservation; ground water; mass balance; observation wells; Texas; United States; water management; water resources; water use ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Innovative base-wide approach to groundwater classification and closure of the shallow groundwater-bearing unit (GWBU) at Lackland AFB, Texas under the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) AN - 50226514; 2009-084810 AB - The Air Force used a base-wide approach for corrective action and closure of the uppermost GWBU at Lackland AFB instead of the conventional approach of addressing contaminated groundwater on a site-by-site basis. The study area is the 6,700-acre Lackland AFB installation, comprised of the Lackland Main Base and Lackland Training Annex. The TRRP has criteria for classifying groundwater as Class 1, 2, or 3, based on use and quality or yield of the GWBU. Class 1 groundwater is a sustainable resource that is suitable for drinking water, while Class 3 groundwater is non-sustainable and of limited usefulness. Protective concentration limits or PCLs are the cleanup standards for groundwater and are based on the groundwater classification. Class 3 PCLs are generally 100 times higher than Class 1 or 2 PCLs, therefore significantly less effort is required for Class 3 groundwater cleanup and closure than for Class 1 or 2 groundwater. The main objectives of the Lackland Base-wide Groundwater Study were to classify the shallow GWBU and develop an installation-wide conceptual site model or CSM. The shallow GWBU consists of a 2 to 45 ft thick layer of intermixed silt, clay, and gravel overlying the Navarro Clay. The shallow GWBU is separated from the Edwards Aquifer by an approximately 700 ft thick leaky confining layer comprised of clay, shale, and limestone. To refine the CSM and to classify the groundwater, the following activities were conducted: install and log lithology in 68 wells in the shallow GWBU; map water-bearing, drainage, and stratigraphic zones; stream gauge Leon and Medio Creeks; analyze TDS in the shallow GWBU; and conduct aquifer tests to document properties of the shallow GWBU. In October 2007, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved the Base-wide Groundwater Study Report, which documents that the shallow GWBU at Lackland AFB is Class 3. A base-wide groundwater Affected Property Assessment Report is in preparation and utilizes the Base-wide Groundwater Study findings. With Class 3 PCLs, only one small area in the shallow GWBU requires action, which is likely to be limited to institutional controls, to achieve closure of all shallow groundwater at Lackland AFB. This will essentially eliminate the need for costly and unnecessary remediation of the shallow GWBU at Lackland AFB. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Pasternak, Kevin AU - Young, Steve AU - Richmann, Debra AU - Davis, Dan AU - Nguyen, Kim AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 5 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 41 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - water quality KW - programs KW - shallow-water environment KW - confined aquifers KW - pollution KW - Texas KW - drinking water KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - Texas Risk Reduction Program KW - classification KW - Edwards Aquifer KW - Navarro Clay KW - military facilities KW - water resources KW - Lackland Air Force Base KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50226514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Innovative+base-wide+approach+to+groundwater+classification+and+closure+of+the+shallow+groundwater-bearing+unit+%28GWBU%29+at+Lackland+AFB%2C+Texas+under+the+Texas+Risk+Reduction+Program+%28TRRP%29&rft.au=Pasternak%2C+Kevin%3BYoung%2C+Steve%3BRichmann%2C+Debra%3BDavis%2C+Dan%3BNguyen%2C+Kim%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Pasternak&rft.aufirst=Kevin&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=5&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 43rd annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; classification; confined aquifers; drinking water; Edwards Aquifer; ground water; Lackland Air Force Base; military facilities; Navarro Clay; pollution; programs; shallow-water environment; Texas; Texas Risk Reduction Program; United States; water quality; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Munitions and Dredging Experience on the United States Coast AN - 21113763; 11327227 AB - A number of dredging projects have unknowingly and unfortunately encountered munitions and explosives of concern (MEC). MEC have been discovered on dredges (e.g., in dragheads, cutterheads, pump casings) and at the dredged material placement site. Detonations have occurred that have either damaged the dredge plant or have even sunk the dredging vessel. A number of recent dredging projects have proactively addressed MEC issues before the start of construction, thereby greatly reducing overall risk and MEC cleanup costs. This paper explains common dredging equipment, discusses techniques useful in reducing the inherent risks of dredging in sediments containing MEC, and discusses lessons learned during various dredging projects involving MEC. Application of MEC avoidance and exclusion techniques during dredging operations is minor compared to the enormous cost of post-dredging MEC cleanup. Most importantly it is possible to avoid exposing the public to explosive safety hazards and minimize those to workers with proper planning and execution. JF - Marine Technology Society Journal AU - Greene, P AU - Follett, G AU - Henker, C AD - USACE, Baltimore, EN-EESS (Engineering Division - Environmental & Explosive Safety Section) Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - Mar 2009 SP - 127 EP - 132 PB - Marine Technology Society, Inc., 5565 Sterrett Place Suite 108 Columbia MD 21044 USA, [mailto:mtspubs@aol.com], [URL:http://www.mtsociety.org] VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0025-3324, 0025-3324 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Marine KW - Construction KW - Military operations KW - Cleanup KW - Dredges KW - Costs KW - Hazards KW - Risk KW - USA KW - Marine pollution KW - Planning KW - Dredging KW - Pumps KW - Explosives KW - Coasts KW - Marine technology KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - O 6040:Mining and Dredging Operations KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - Q2 09384:Dredging UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21113763?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.atitle=Munitions+and+Dredging+Experience+on+the+United+States+Coast&rft.au=Greene%2C+P%3BFollett%2C+G%3BHenker%2C+C&rft.aulast=Greene&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=127&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.issn=00253324&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hazards; Marine pollution; Military operations; Dredging; Marine technology; Dredges; Costs; Risk; Construction; Planning; Pumps; Explosives; Coasts; Cleanup; USA; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An Overview of Underwater Technologies for Operations Involving Underwater Munitions AN - 21112848; 11327221 AB - Studies to understand the potential risks associated with underwater munitions are still in their infancy. Response actions are normally driven by risk. From an explosives safety perspective, the Department of Defense helieves leaving underwater munitions in place is often the safest course of action. Additionally, the risks posed by underwater munitions (e.g.. sea disposal sites) remain largely unknown. Thus, it is unlikely that munition responses requiring the recovery of underwater munitions will occur in the near future. The exception is where such munitions are determined to pose an imminent and substantial threat to human health and the environment. This article discusses technologies that can be used to characterize underwater munition sites, including bounding the site and sampling for any release of munition constituents. It also addresses technologies that can be used for recovery operations and for the disposal of any munitions. Navigation and underwater positioning are integral to all of these operations and are discussed separately. JF - Marine Technology Society Journal AU - Schwartz, A AU - Brandenburg, E AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 62 EP - 75 PB - Marine Technology Society, Inc., 5565 Sterrett Place Suite 108 Columbia MD 21044 USA, [mailto:mtspubs@aol.com], [URL:http://www.mtsociety.org] VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0025-3324, 0025-3324 KW - Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Marine KW - Positioning systems KW - Literature reviews KW - Marine pollution KW - Navigation KW - Public health KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - O 4060:Pollution - Environment UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21112848?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.atitle=An+Overview+of+Underwater+Technologies+for+Operations+Involving+Underwater+Munitions&rft.au=Schwartz%2C+A%3BBrandenburg%2C+E&rft.aulast=Schwartz&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=62&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.issn=00253324&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Positioning systems; Marine pollution; Literature reviews; Navigation; Public health; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monitoring River Ice Conditions Using Web-Based Cameras AN - 20493827; 9188306 AB - It is necessary to monitor river ice conditions at many northern locations where river ice can pose a risk. Web cameras have been used to monitor real-time ice conditions at hydropower plants, navigation reaches, or locations of ice-related flooding. This study demonstrates how Web cameras can also be used to investigate river ice processes. Hourly images taken over three winters at the confluence of the Allegheny River and Oil Creek in Oil City, Pa. were analyzed. Each image was manually reviewed and classified according to surface ice conditions: stationary ice cover, frazil ice, brash ice, or open lead formation in an ice cover. The percentage of the channel width in the image covered by each ice condition was recorded. The time series of ice data are presented along with the concurrent hydrological and meteorological data. The Web cameras were operational during the 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 winter seasons and provided an effective and relatively inexpensive means of monitoring and analyzing the river ice conditions. JF - Journal of Cold Regions Engineering AU - Vuyovich, C M AU - Daly, S F AU - Gagnon, J J AU - Weyrick, P AU - Zaitsoff, M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, USA, carrie.m.vuyovich@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - Mar 2009 SP - 1 EP - 17 VL - 23 IS - 1 SN - 0887-381X, 0887-381X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Cameras KW - Rivers KW - River ice conditions KW - USA, New York, Allegheny R. KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20493827?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Monitoring+River+Ice+Conditions+Using+Web-Based+Cameras&rft.au=Vuyovich%2C+C+M%3BDaly%2C+S+F%3BGagnon%2C+J+J%3BWeyrick%2C+P%3BZaitsoff%2C+M&rft.aulast=Vuyovich&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0887381X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290887-381X%282009%2923%3A1%281%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - River ice conditions; Rivers; USA, New York, Allegheny R. DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-381X(2009)23:1(1) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Laboratory study of combined wave overtopping and storm surge overflow of a levee AN - 20379249; 9056554 AB - Combined wave overtopping and storm surge overflow of a levee with a trapezoidal cross section was studied in a two-dimensional laboratory wave/flow flume at a nominal prototype-to-model length scale of 25-to-1. The goal of this study was to develop design guidance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Time series of water depth at two locations on the levee crown and flow thickness at five locations on the landward-side slope were measured along with horizontal velocity near the landward edge of the crown. New equations are presented for average overtopping discharge, distribution of instantaneous discharge, and distribution of individual wave volumes. Equations are also given for mean flow thickness, RMS wave height, mean velocity, and velocity of the wave front down the landward-side slope. JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Hughes, SA AU - Nadal, N C AD - 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 USA, Steven.A.Hughes@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 244 EP - 259 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl] VL - 56 IS - 3 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Overflow KW - Coastal engineering KW - Time series analysis KW - Storm Surges KW - Waves KW - Slopes KW - Wave velocity KW - Overtopping KW - Marine KW - Mathematical models KW - Laboratories KW - Levees KW - Velocity KW - Wave Height KW - Hurricanes KW - Coastal zone KW - Fronts KW - Storm surges KW - Wave height KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09168:Wind waves KW - M2 551.515.2:Cyclones Hurricanes Typhoons (551.515.2) KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20379249?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=Laboratory+study+of+combined+wave+overtopping+and+storm+surge+overflow+of+a+levee&rft.au=Hughes%2C+SA%3BNadal%2C+N+C&rft.aulast=Hughes&rft.aufirst=SA&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=244&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2008.09.005 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hurricanes; Coastal zone; Mathematical models; Storm surges; Wave height; Levees; Wave velocity; Overtopping; Coastal engineering; Fronts; Time series analysis; Overflow; Storm Surges; Laboratories; Velocity; Waves; Slopes; Wave Height; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2008.09.005 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Loss of Sea Ice in the Arctic AN - 20049630; 8749378 AB - The Arctic sea ice cover is in decline. The areal extent of the ice cover has been decreasing for the past few decades at an accelerating rate. Evidence also points to a decrease in sea ice thickness and a reduction in the amount of thicker perennial sea ice. A general global warming trend has made the ice cover more vulnerable to natural fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic forcing. The observed reduction in Arctic sea ice is a consequence of both thermodynamic and dynamic processes, including such factors as preconditioning of the ice cover, overall warming trends, changes in cloud coverage, shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns, increased export of older ice out of the Arctic, advection of ocean heat from the Pacific and North Atlantic, enhanced solar heating of the ocean, and the ice-albedo feedback. The diminishing Arctic sea ice is creating social, political, economic, and ecological challenges. JF - Annual Review of Marine Science AU - Perovich, Donald K AU - Richter-Menge, Jacqueline A AD - Engineer Research and Development Center-Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290, Donald.K.Perovich@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 PB - Annual Reviews, Inc., 4139 El Camino Way Box 10139 Palo Alto CA 94303-0139 USA, [mailto:service@annualreviews.org] VL - 1 SN - 1941-1405, 1941-1405 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Climatic changes KW - Advection KW - Arctic sea ice KW - Sea ice thickness KW - Economics KW - Thermodynamics of the atmosphere KW - Vulnerability KW - Marine KW - Solar heating KW - Ice KW - Ocean-ice-atmosphere system KW - Ocean circulation KW - Atmospheric circulation KW - Greenhouse effect KW - AN, North Atlantic KW - PN, Arctic KW - Clouds KW - Sea ice KW - Oceans KW - Reviews KW - Atmospheric forcing KW - Global warming KW - Arctic ecology KW - Ice cover KW - Atmospheric circulation patterns KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - M2 551.326:Floating Ice (551.326) KW - Q2 09146:TSD distribution, water masses and circulation KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20049630?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Annual+Review+of+Marine+Science&rft.atitle=Loss+of+Sea+Ice+in+the+Arctic&rft.au=Perovich%2C+Donald+K%3BRichter-Menge%2C+Jacqueline+A&rft.aulast=Perovich&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annual+Review+of+Marine+Science&rft.issn=19411405&rft_id=info:doi/10.1146%2Fannurev.marine.010908.163805 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Clouds; Ocean-ice-atmosphere system; Sea ice; Climatic changes; Atmospheric forcing; Ocean circulation; Greenhouse effect; Vulnerability; Ice cover; Ice; Reviews; Oceans; Economics; Global warming; Atmospheric circulation; Solar heating; Sea ice thickness; Arctic sea ice; Thermodynamics of the atmosphere; Arctic ecology; Advection; Atmospheric circulation patterns; PN, Arctic; AN, North Atlantic; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163805 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evidence for Holocene surface ruptures on the Kern Canyon Fault; a former Mesozoic structure of the southern Sierra Nevada, Kern County, California AN - 1832627846; 726059-90 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Kozaci, O AU - Lutz, A AU - Turner, R AU - Amos, C AU - Rose, R AU - Kelson, K AU - Baldwin, J AU - Simpson, David AU - Maat, Paula AU - Kozlowicz, Benjamin AU - Slack, Christopher AU - Rugg, S AU - Sowers, J AU - Brossy, C AU - Ortiz, R AU - Glidden, T AU - ? Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 311 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 80 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - Sierra Nevada KW - southern Sierra Nevada Batholith KW - paleoseismicity KW - laser methods KW - lakes KW - Holocene KW - Cenozoic KW - California KW - Kern County California KW - Lake Isabella KW - Sierra Nevada Batholith KW - dams KW - sediments KW - active faults KW - faults KW - reservoirs KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - cartography KW - Mesozoic KW - rupture KW - lidar methods KW - geomorphology KW - earthquakes KW - remote sensing KW - Kern Canyon Fault KW - 19:Seismology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832627846?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Evidence+for+Holocene+surface+ruptures+on+the+Kern+Canyon+Fault%3B+a+former+Mesozoic+structure+of+the+southern+Sierra+Nevada%2C+Kern+County%2C+California&rft.au=Kozaci%2C+O%3BLutz%2C+A%3BTurner%2C+R%3BAmos%2C+C%3BRose%2C+R%3BKelson%2C+K%3BBaldwin%2C+J%3BSimpson%2C+David%3BMaat%2C+Paula%3BKozlowicz%2C+Benjamin%3BSlack%2C+Christopher%3BRugg%2C+S%3BSowers%2C+J%3BBrossy%2C+C%3BOrtiz%2C+R%3BGlidden%2C+T%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Kozaci&rft.aufirst=O&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=311&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - active faults; California; cartography; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; dams; earthquakes; faults; geomorphology; Holocene; Kern Canyon Fault; Kern County California; Lake Isabella; lakes; laser methods; lidar methods; Mesozoic; paleoseismicity; Quaternary; remote sensing; reservoirs; rupture; sediments; Sierra Nevada; Sierra Nevada Batholith; southern Sierra Nevada Batholith; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geomorphic analysis of the Kern Canyon Fault using lidar data from Walker Basin to the Kings-Kern divide, Tulare and Kern counties, CA AN - 1832627143; 726059-61 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Kelson, K I AU - Amos, C B AU - Baldwin, J N AU - Simpson, David T AU - Rose, R S AU - ? Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 305 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 80 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - Tulare County California KW - Sierra Nevada KW - laser methods KW - Kings River KW - rivers KW - digital terrain models KW - relief KW - California KW - Kern County California KW - topography KW - Walker Basin KW - lidar methods KW - Lake Isabella KW - Kern River KW - fluvial features KW - drainage basins KW - active faults KW - earthquakes KW - faults KW - remote sensing KW - Kern Canyon Fault KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832627143?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Geomorphic+analysis+of+the+Kern+Canyon+Fault+using+lidar+data+from+Walker+Basin+to+the+Kings-Kern+divide%2C+Tulare+and+Kern+counties%2C+CA&rft.au=Kelson%2C+K+I%3BAmos%2C+C+B%3BBaldwin%2C+J+N%3BSimpson%2C+David+T%3BRose%2C+R+S%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Kelson&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=305&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - active faults; California; digital terrain models; drainage basins; earthquakes; faults; fluvial features; Kern Canyon Fault; Kern County California; Kern River; Kings River; Lake Isabella; laser methods; lidar methods; relief; remote sensing; rivers; Sierra Nevada; topography; Tulare County California; United States; Walker Basin ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Preliminary late Quaternary slip rate estimate for the northern Kern Canyon fault zone, Tulare and Kern counties, California AN - 1832627028; 726059-91 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Amos, C B AU - Kelson, K I AU - Rood, D H AU - Simpson, D T AU - Baldwin, J N AU - Rose, R S AU - ? Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 311 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 80 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - Tulare County California KW - paleoseismicity KW - laser methods KW - isotopes KW - Cretaceous KW - slip rates KW - erosion features KW - digital terrain models KW - Holocene KW - Upper Cretaceous KW - Cenozoic KW - California KW - Kern County California KW - topography KW - radioactive isotopes KW - Lake Isabella KW - dates KW - carbon KW - absolute age KW - exhumation KW - active faults KW - faults KW - shear zones KW - Quaternary KW - Mesozoic KW - lidar methods KW - fluvial features KW - scarps KW - geomorphology KW - C-14 KW - earthquakes KW - remote sensing KW - Kern Canyon Fault KW - fault zones KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832627028?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Preliminary+late+Quaternary+slip+rate+estimate+for+the+northern+Kern+Canyon+fault+zone%2C+Tulare+and+Kern+counties%2C+California&rft.au=Amos%2C+C+B%3BKelson%2C+K+I%3BRood%2C+D+H%3BSimpson%2C+D+T%3BBaldwin%2C+J+N%3BRose%2C+R+S%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Amos&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=311&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; active faults; C-14; California; carbon; Cenozoic; Cretaceous; dates; digital terrain models; earthquakes; erosion features; exhumation; fault zones; faults; fluvial features; geomorphology; Holocene; isotopes; Kern Canyon Fault; Kern County California; Lake Isabella; laser methods; lidar methods; Mesozoic; paleoseismicity; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; remote sensing; scarps; shear zones; slip rates; topography; Tulare County California; United States; Upper Cretaceous ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Polaris Fault; a previously unmapped fault discovered using lidar near Martis Creek Dam, Truckee, CA AN - 1832611802; 726059-62 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Hunter, Lewis E AU - Howle, J F AU - Rose, R S AU - Bawden, G W AU - ? Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 305 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 80 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - relative age KW - paleoseismicity KW - laser methods KW - isotopes KW - Nevada County California KW - Cenozoic KW - California KW - radioactive isotopes KW - Martis Creek Dam KW - optically stimulated luminescence KW - geochronology KW - dates KW - carbon KW - drainage basins KW - absolute age KW - active faults KW - faults KW - reservoirs KW - Quaternary KW - cartography KW - Truckee California KW - lidar methods KW - alluvial fans KW - transtension KW - Prosser Creek Reservoir KW - fluvial features KW - streams KW - Polaris Fault KW - Mohawk Valley fault zone KW - geomorphology KW - C-14 KW - earthquakes KW - remote sensing KW - fault zones KW - 16:Structural geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832611802?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=The+Polaris+Fault%3B+a+previously+unmapped+fault+discovered+using+lidar+near+Martis+Creek+Dam%2C+Truckee%2C+CA&rft.au=Hunter%2C+Lewis+E%3BHowle%2C+J+F%3BRose%2C+R+S%3BBawden%2C+G+W%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Hunter&rft.aufirst=Lewis&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=305&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; active faults; alluvial fans; C-14; California; carbon; cartography; Cenozoic; dates; drainage basins; earthquakes; fault zones; faults; fluvial features; geochronology; geomorphology; isotopes; laser methods; lidar methods; Martis Creek Dam; Mohawk Valley fault zone; Nevada County California; optically stimulated luminescence; paleoseismicity; Polaris Fault; Prosser Creek Reservoir; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; relative age; remote sensing; reservoirs; streams; transtension; Truckee California; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ground motion recordings from the April 18, 2008 Illinois earthquake AN - 1832611776; 726059-52 JF - Seismological Research Letters AU - Wang, Z AU - Woolery, E W AU - Schaefer, Jeffrey A AU - ? Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 303 PB - Seismological Society of America, El Cerrito, CA VL - 80 IS - 2 SN - 0895-0695, 0895-0695 KW - United States KW - monitoring KW - Illinois KW - geologic hazards KW - Illinois earthquake 2008 KW - aftershocks KW - southeastern Illinois KW - strong motion KW - natural hazards KW - ground motion KW - seismic networks KW - earthquakes KW - instruments KW - 19:Seismology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832611776?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.atitle=Ground+motion+recordings+from+the+April+18%2C+2008+Illinois+earthquake&rft.au=Wang%2C+Z%3BWoolery%2C+E+W%3BSchaefer%2C+Jeffrey+A%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Z&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=303&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Seismological+Research+Letters&rft.issn=08950695&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - CA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aftershocks; earthquakes; geologic hazards; ground motion; Illinois; Illinois earthquake 2008; instruments; monitoring; natural hazards; seismic networks; southeastern Illinois; strong motion; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of a gravel transport sensor for bed load measurements in natural flows AN - 1027085321; 651032-1 AB - A recent acoustic instrument (Gravel Transport Sensor, GTS) was tested for predicting sediment transport rate (bed load rate) in gravel bed streams. The GTS operation is based on the particle collision theory of submerged obstacles in fluids. When particles collide with the GTS cylinder their momentum is recorded in the form of ping rates. The GTS is attractive for further consideration here because of its potential to provide continuous unattended local bed load measurements, especially in areas found in streams that access may be difficult under extreme conditions. Laboratory experiments coupled with numerical simulations for the same flow conditions were performed in order to determine the conditions under which particles of different size will hit the GTS cylinder and be able to register a ping rate. The GTS was able to detect the number of particles with diameter in the range of 15.9 to 25.4 mm, with reasonable accuracy, if the applied Shields effective stress tau e=tau tau cr was in the range of 0.006 to 0.015. A drawback of the tested prototype GTS, however, was that it exerted increased resistance on the incoming particles. The added drag effects increased the overall resistance that was exerted by the flow on particles and thus increased the likelihood that particles will rest in the ambient region of the cylinder instead of hitting it. Numerical simulation of the flow around the GTS cylinder revealed that changing the prototype geometry from cylindrical to ellipsoid or rhomboid will increase the likelihood of the particles hitting the instrument under the same flow conditions failed by the original tested GTS cylinder. JF - International Journal of Sediment Research AU - Papanicolaou, Athanasios N AU - Elhakeem, Mohamed AU - Knapp, Doug Y1 - 2009/03// PY - 2009 DA - March 2009 SP - 1 EP - 15 PB - Elsevier Science Direct, Beijing VL - 24 IS - 1 SN - 1001-6279, 1001-6279 KW - hydrology KW - bedload KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - rivers and streams KW - gravel KW - simulation KW - flume studies KW - measurement KW - evaluation KW - transport KW - streamflow KW - sediments KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027085321?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Sediment+Research&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+a+gravel+transport+sensor+for+bed+load+measurements+in+natural+flows&rft.au=Papanicolaou%2C+Athanasios+N%3BElhakeem%2C+Mohamed%3BKnapp%2C+Doug&rft.aulast=Papanicolaou&rft.aufirst=Athanasios&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Sediment+Research&rft.issn=10016279&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedload; clastic sediments; evaluation; flume studies; gravel; hydrology; measurement; numerical models; rivers and streams; sediment transport; sediments; simulation; streamflow; transport ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - River of Lessons: What Engineers and Scientists Can Learn from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) History T2 - 2009 Conference of the American Society for Environmental History AN - 41738267; 5017539 JF - 2009 Conference of the American Society for Environmental History AU - Vearil, James Y1 - 2009/02/25/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Feb 25 KW - USA, Florida, Everglades KW - Historical account KW - Rivers KW - Restoration KW - U 7000:Multidisciplinary UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41738267?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2009+Conference+of+the+American+Society+for+Environmental+History&rft.atitle=River+of+Lessons%3A+What+Engineers+and+Scientists+Can+Learn+from+the+Comprehensive+Everglades+Restoration+Plan+%28CERP%29+History&rft.au=Vearil%2C+James&rft.aulast=Vearil&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2009-02-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2009+Conference+of+the+American+Society+for+Environmental+History&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aseh.net/conferences/conference-archives/tallahassee09/tall -program LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANORE PROJECT, SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MONTANORE PROJECT, SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 873125381; 13781-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A copper and silver underground mine and associated electric transmission line located about 18 miles south of Libby near the Cabinet Mountains, Sanders County and Lincoln County, Montana are proposed. The ore body is beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, but all access and surface facilities would be located outside of the wilderness. Montanore Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mines Management, Inc., would be the project's owner and operator. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to acid rock drainage and near neutral pH metal leaching, surface and ground water, fish and aquatic habitat, scenic areas, endangered wildlife, and wetlands. Four mine alternatives and five transmission line alternatives, including No Action alternatives for each component (Alternative 1 and Alternative A, respectively), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the proposed mine alternative, the mill and mine production adits would be located in the upper Ramsey Creek drainage, about 0.5 mile east of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness boundary. An additional adit would be located on private land in the Libby Creek drainage, and a vertical opening would be built for ventilation on MMCs two patented mining claims adjacent to Rock Lake. A tailings impoundment would require the diversion of Little Cherry Creek. Two land application disposal (LAD) areas would allow for discharge of water and waste rock would be stored temporarily at one LAD area. MMC would upgrade National Forest System (NFS) Road 278 (Bear Creek Road), NFS road 4781 (Ramsey Creek Road), and NFS road 2316 (Upper Libby Creek Road). The operating permit area would encompass 3,628 acres. Under Alternative B, the proposed transmission line alternative, a new, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line would provide power to the mill and other mine facilities. A new Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) substation site would be located at the Noxon-Libby 230-kV transmission line in Sedlak Park, about 30 miles southeast of Libby. MMCs proposed transmission line would head northwest from the substation for about 1 mile paralleling U.S. 2, and then follow the Fisher River and U.S. 2 north about 3.3 miles. The alignment would turn west and follow the Miller Creek drainage for 2.5 miles, then turn northwest and traverse up a tributary to Miller Creek, then cross into the upper Midas Creek drainage, and then down to Howard and Libby Creek drainages. The alignment would cross the low ridge between Libby Creek and Ramsey Creek, and then would generally follow Ramsey Creek to the Ramsey Plant Site. All structures would be steel monopoles and helicopter would be used for vegetation clearing and structure placement would be at MMCs discretion. Alternative 3 (Poorman Impoundment Alternative) would relocate 4 major mine facilities to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. and would develop a tailings impoundment site north of Poorman Creek. Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3, but would modify the proposed Little Cherry Creek tailings impoundment to protect riparian habitat conservation areas. Alternative C would modify the transmission line by routing it on an east-facing ridge north of the Sedlak Park substation instead of following the Fisher River. Alternative D would further modify the transmission line proposal with regard to structures, helicopter use, and vegetation clearing and Alternative E would route the line on the north side of West Fisher Creek to minimize effects on grizzly bear habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the orderly and economic mining of copper and silver from deposits contained in northwestern Montana to meet a portion of current and future public demands while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and related activities would disturb 2,582 acres. The mineral deposit proposed for mining would have low to moderate risk of acid generation. Periodic short-term increases in sediment would occur in streams in the Libby Creek watershed and operations would alter flow in Libby Creek and its tributaries. Little Cherry Creek would be diverted permanently around the tailings impoundment, resulting in a loss of 13,000 feet of aquatic habitat, and reduced flows in East Fork Rock Creek and East Fork Bull River would affect bull trout habitat. The proposed project would require the unavoidable filling of up to 38 acres of wetlands. Mine area habitat of grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx would be affected permanently, although proposed land acquisition programs would reduce impacts. Construction of the proposed transmission line would temporarily displace 12,582 to 16,501 acres of grizzly bear habitat, and 18 to 56 acres of riparian habitat conservation areas would be affected. Mining and transmission facilities would alter the scenic integrity from key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090048, Draft EIS (Volume I)--481 pages and maps, Draft EIS (Volume II)--596 pages, Appendices--425 pages, CD-ROM, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Mines KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cabinet Mountains Wilderness KW - Kootenai National Forest KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+SANDERS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+SANDERS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223998; 13783-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 28 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223991; 13783-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 27 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223983; 13783-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 26 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223977; 13783-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 25 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223971; 13783-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223966; 13783-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223960; 13783-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223954; 13783-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223947; 13783-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223937; 13783-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223928; 13783-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223428; 13783-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223401; 13783-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223373; 13783-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223359; 13783-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223330; 13783-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223308; 13783-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223290; 13783-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223273; 13783-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223250; 13783-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223229; 13783-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223210; 13783-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223182; 13783-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223151; 13783-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223131; 13783-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222961; 13783-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222945; 13783-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868222557; 13783-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868222557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLEY LAND CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 0 of 1] T2 - FOLEY LAND CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 756825845; 13780-090047_0000 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of federal permits for the development of 17 marinas along the Foley Land Cut (FLC) portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in southern Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The FLC is a federally authorized and maintained commercial shipping channel extending approximately 10 miles from Wolf Bay in the east to Oyster Bay in the west. The majority of the FLC is within the city limits of Gulf Shores; and the area east of the Foley Beach Expressway is in the city limits of Orange Beach. The permit applications submitted propose construction of 15 mixed-use developments along the FLC consisting of 17 marinas, in excess of 16,700 condominium units, 1,722 wet boat slips, 1,742 dry boat storage spaces, various commercial establishments, support facilities, and resort amenities such as pools, boardwalks, and restroom facilities. The proposed projects would be situated in south Baldwin County on 15 parcels of land, of which 14 are along the northern shoreline of the FLC and are generally bounded to the north by Baldwin County Road 4. The fifteenth parcel of land proposed for development lies along the Oyster Bay southern shoreline, south of the FLC. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to waterway capacity, socioeconomic impacts, infrastructure impacts, biological and natural resources, water quality, and hurricane evacuation. Three alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The Maximum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 2), would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips on the FLC through the year 2025. The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, would initially approve permits for 1,818 boat slips through the first year of construction, with the option of phasing in 1,150 additional boat slips until the maximum number of slips (3,093) was reached. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would meet the market demand for resort locations with waterfront location and access but less exposure to hurricane damage, for wet and dry storage of watercraft, and for convenient and safe access to recreational boating and fishing. The marina facilities would complement on-site mixed-use resort communities. Development would have beneficial economic impacts and provide additional recreational, retail, and commercial facilities and services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed projects would impact approximately 711 acres and require excavation of approximately 3.1 million cubic yards of material from uplands, wetlands, and waterbottoms. Undeveloped pine habitat and narrow marsh fringe along the northern shoreline of the FLC, would be replaced by impervious land cover. A total of 2.06 acres of wetlands would be impacted by dredging and filling. Full development would bring an expected increase of approximately 85,640 vehicles per day on roads and would increase the hurricane-evacuating population to 283,000. Public shelter demand in the event of a hurricane would increase from 17,500 to 19,800 evacuees. Implementation would more than double boat traffic on the FLC and noise levels would increase accordingly. Increased light pollution would impair boater vision and increase the risk of accidents. Development and population growth could reduce available groundwater and lead to possible saltwater intrusion. Implementation would degrade visual aesthetics. Increased density of boats on the FLC would raise the potential for conflicts between recreational and commercial boaters and boating accidents. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 090047, 224 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 0 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Community Development KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Safety KW - Salinity KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 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/756825845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLEY LAND CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FOLEY LAND CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 756825788; 13780-090047_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of federal permits for the development of 17 marinas along the Foley Land Cut (FLC) portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in southern Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The FLC is a federally authorized and maintained commercial shipping channel extending approximately 10 miles from Wolf Bay in the east to Oyster Bay in the west. The majority of the FLC is within the city limits of Gulf Shores; and the area east of the Foley Beach Expressway is in the city limits of Orange Beach. The permit applications submitted propose construction of 15 mixed-use developments along the FLC consisting of 17 marinas, in excess of 16,700 condominium units, 1,722 wet boat slips, 1,742 dry boat storage spaces, various commercial establishments, support facilities, and resort amenities such as pools, boardwalks, and restroom facilities. The proposed projects would be situated in south Baldwin County on 15 parcels of land, of which 14 are along the northern shoreline of the FLC and are generally bounded to the north by Baldwin County Road 4. The fifteenth parcel of land proposed for development lies along the Oyster Bay southern shoreline, south of the FLC. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to waterway capacity, socioeconomic impacts, infrastructure impacts, biological and natural resources, water quality, and hurricane evacuation. Three alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The Maximum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 2), would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips on the FLC through the year 2025. The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, would initially approve permits for 1,818 boat slips through the first year of construction, with the option of phasing in 1,150 additional boat slips until the maximum number of slips (3,093) was reached. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would meet the market demand for resort locations with waterfront location and access but less exposure to hurricane damage, for wet and dry storage of watercraft, and for convenient and safe access to recreational boating and fishing. The marina facilities would complement on-site mixed-use resort communities. Development would have beneficial economic impacts and provide additional recreational, retail, and commercial facilities and services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed projects would impact approximately 711 acres and require excavation of approximately 3.1 million cubic yards of material from uplands, wetlands, and waterbottoms. Undeveloped pine habitat and narrow marsh fringe along the northern shoreline of the FLC, would be replaced by impervious land cover. A total of 2.06 acres of wetlands would be impacted by dredging and filling. Full development would bring an expected increase of approximately 85,640 vehicles per day on roads and would increase the hurricane-evacuating population to 283,000. Public shelter demand in the event of a hurricane would increase from 17,500 to 19,800 evacuees. Implementation would more than double boat traffic on the FLC and noise levels would increase accordingly. Increased light pollution would impair boater vision and increase the risk of accidents. Development and population growth could reduce available groundwater and lead to possible saltwater intrusion. Implementation would degrade visual aesthetics. Increased density of boats on the FLC would raise the potential for conflicts between recreational and commercial boaters and boating accidents. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 090047, 224 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Community Development KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Safety KW - Salinity KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 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/756825788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825341; 13782-090049_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of two arrangements to streamline and otherwise improve the ability of federal and state authorities to issue permits for projects resulting in alteration of the San Diego Creek watershed in San Diego County, California is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The arrangements, known as Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and the Watershed Streambed Alteration Agreement Process (WSAA), would provide new frameworks for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game in addressing permit applications. The underlying goal of the SAMP would be to support riparian ecosystem conservation and management by comprehensively assessing the watershed's aquatic resources and developing a strategic and coordinated regulatory approach encompassing permitting and mitigation. The overarching principles for the watershed based on knowledge of watershed resources would include: 1) no net loss of acreage and functionality of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; 2) maintenance or restoration of hydrologic, water quality, and habitat integrity; 3) protection of headwater areas; 4) maintenance, protection, or restoration of diverse and continuous riparian corridors; 5) maintenance or restoration of floodplain connections; 6) maintenance and/or restoration of sediment and transport equilibria; 7) maintenance of aquatic buffers for protected riparian corridors; and 8) protection of riparian areas and associated habitats supporting sensitive species and their habitats. Applying these principles, an analytical framework based on a landscape-level functional assessment of the watershed's riparian ecosystem would be completed. Using this framework, a watershed-specific permitting process would be developed incorporating resource-based permitting protocols. The remaining two components of the system would involve development of a strategic mitigation plan and a mitigation coordination program. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative, which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process; 2) denial of all permits that would encroach on state or federal jurisdictional areas of either of the principal agencies; 3) denial of all permits that would encroach on jurisdiction areas of the principals, excepting permits for bridges and utility lines, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis; and 4) a general plan build-out which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process and assume that there would be no local requirements for preservation or conservation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP/WSAA arrangements would prioritize avoidance of impacts to high quality aquatic resources and provide for targeted enhancement and restoration measures related to regulatory actions that would maintain and improve the watershed's aquatic resource functions and values over the long-term. SAMP would increase the cooperation and coordination of federal, state, and local governments as well as state and federal resource agencies, local landowners, and other stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities resulting from the permitting process that would temporarily or permanently affect watershed resources, including stream channels and banks, associated wetlands and other riparian lands, and forest and meadow vegetation, would include grading, stockpiling, trenching, construction and use of culverts, sediment removal, temporary stream and permanent diversions, dewatering, construction of temporary and permanent access roads and bridges and culverts, fire abatement and fuels management measures, clearance of work areas, stormwater management, and residential, commercial, and industrial land development. Habitat and habitat corridors, including resources for sensitive species, would be lost or degraded in some cases, though such losses would be mitigated, when possible, by creation of habitat elsewhere. Cultural resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed. 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 08-0224D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090049, Final EIS-588 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Errata--301 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Land Use KW - Regulations KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Diego Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825261; 13782-090049_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of two arrangements to streamline and otherwise improve the ability of federal and state authorities to issue permits for projects resulting in alteration of the San Diego Creek watershed in San Diego County, California is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The arrangements, known as Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and the Watershed Streambed Alteration Agreement Process (WSAA), would provide new frameworks for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game in addressing permit applications. The underlying goal of the SAMP would be to support riparian ecosystem conservation and management by comprehensively assessing the watershed's aquatic resources and developing a strategic and coordinated regulatory approach encompassing permitting and mitigation. The overarching principles for the watershed based on knowledge of watershed resources would include: 1) no net loss of acreage and functionality of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; 2) maintenance or restoration of hydrologic, water quality, and habitat integrity; 3) protection of headwater areas; 4) maintenance, protection, or restoration of diverse and continuous riparian corridors; 5) maintenance or restoration of floodplain connections; 6) maintenance and/or restoration of sediment and transport equilibria; 7) maintenance of aquatic buffers for protected riparian corridors; and 8) protection of riparian areas and associated habitats supporting sensitive species and their habitats. Applying these principles, an analytical framework based on a landscape-level functional assessment of the watershed's riparian ecosystem would be completed. Using this framework, a watershed-specific permitting process would be developed incorporating resource-based permitting protocols. The remaining two components of the system would involve development of a strategic mitigation plan and a mitigation coordination program. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative, which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process; 2) denial of all permits that would encroach on state or federal jurisdictional areas of either of the principal agencies; 3) denial of all permits that would encroach on jurisdiction areas of the principals, excepting permits for bridges and utility lines, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis; and 4) a general plan build-out which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process and assume that there would be no local requirements for preservation or conservation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP/WSAA arrangements would prioritize avoidance of impacts to high quality aquatic resources and provide for targeted enhancement and restoration measures related to regulatory actions that would maintain and improve the watershed's aquatic resource functions and values over the long-term. SAMP would increase the cooperation and coordination of federal, state, and local governments as well as state and federal resource agencies, local landowners, and other stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities resulting from the permitting process that would temporarily or permanently affect watershed resources, including stream channels and banks, associated wetlands and other riparian lands, and forest and meadow vegetation, would include grading, stockpiling, trenching, construction and use of culverts, sediment removal, temporary stream and permanent diversions, dewatering, construction of temporary and permanent access roads and bridges and culverts, fire abatement and fuels management measures, clearance of work areas, stormwater management, and residential, commercial, and industrial land development. Habitat and habitat corridors, including resources for sensitive species, would be lost or degraded in some cases, though such losses would be mitigated, when possible, by creation of habitat elsewhere. Cultural resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed. 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 08-0224D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090049, Final EIS-588 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Errata--301 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Land Use KW - Regulations KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Diego Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825032; 13782-090049_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of two arrangements to streamline and otherwise improve the ability of federal and state authorities to issue permits for projects resulting in alteration of the San Diego Creek watershed in San Diego County, California is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The arrangements, known as Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and the Watershed Streambed Alteration Agreement Process (WSAA), would provide new frameworks for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game in addressing permit applications. The underlying goal of the SAMP would be to support riparian ecosystem conservation and management by comprehensively assessing the watershed's aquatic resources and developing a strategic and coordinated regulatory approach encompassing permitting and mitigation. The overarching principles for the watershed based on knowledge of watershed resources would include: 1) no net loss of acreage and functionality of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; 2) maintenance or restoration of hydrologic, water quality, and habitat integrity; 3) protection of headwater areas; 4) maintenance, protection, or restoration of diverse and continuous riparian corridors; 5) maintenance or restoration of floodplain connections; 6) maintenance and/or restoration of sediment and transport equilibria; 7) maintenance of aquatic buffers for protected riparian corridors; and 8) protection of riparian areas and associated habitats supporting sensitive species and their habitats. Applying these principles, an analytical framework based on a landscape-level functional assessment of the watershed's riparian ecosystem would be completed. Using this framework, a watershed-specific permitting process would be developed incorporating resource-based permitting protocols. The remaining two components of the system would involve development of a strategic mitigation plan and a mitigation coordination program. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative, which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process; 2) denial of all permits that would encroach on state or federal jurisdictional areas of either of the principal agencies; 3) denial of all permits that would encroach on jurisdiction areas of the principals, excepting permits for bridges and utility lines, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis; and 4) a general plan build-out which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process and assume that there would be no local requirements for preservation or conservation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP/WSAA arrangements would prioritize avoidance of impacts to high quality aquatic resources and provide for targeted enhancement and restoration measures related to regulatory actions that would maintain and improve the watershed's aquatic resource functions and values over the long-term. SAMP would increase the cooperation and coordination of federal, state, and local governments as well as state and federal resource agencies, local landowners, and other stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities resulting from the permitting process that would temporarily or permanently affect watershed resources, including stream channels and banks, associated wetlands and other riparian lands, and forest and meadow vegetation, would include grading, stockpiling, trenching, construction and use of culverts, sediment removal, temporary stream and permanent diversions, dewatering, construction of temporary and permanent access roads and bridges and culverts, fire abatement and fuels management measures, clearance of work areas, stormwater management, and residential, commercial, and industrial land development. Habitat and habitat corridors, including resources for sensitive species, would be lost or degraded in some cases, though such losses would be mitigated, when possible, by creation of habitat elsewhere. Cultural resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed. 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 08-0224D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090049, Final EIS-588 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Errata--301 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Land Use KW - Regulations KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Diego Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO AND HOTEL PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36343599; 13783 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a management contract by the National Indian Gaming Commission between the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe) and SC Sonoma Management, LLC is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino/hotel resort either on the Wilfred site, the Stony Point site, or the Lakeville site in Sonoma County, California. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative G), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives under consideration include: B) the casino, hotel and spa, to be sited at Wilfred, which is the proposed action; C and D) a casino/hotel/spa complex at a different location, Northwest Stony Point or Northeast Stoney Point; E) a reduced-intensity version of the proposed project; F) a business park; and F) a casino/hotel/spa complex at Lakeville. The proposed action would result in the development of the resort complex on a portion of a 252-acre Wilfred site that would be taken into trust for the Tribe. The resort complex would cover 66 acres within the northeast corner of the site and would encompass 762,3000 square feet. The remainder of the Wilfred site would remain undeveloped and allocated for open space, pasture, wildlife habitat, and recycled water sprayfields. The resort would include restaurants, a 300-room hotel, an entertainment venue, banquet/meeting space, and a pool and spa. The Tribe would enter into a Tribal-State Compact to govern the conduct of Class III gaming activities or comply with procedures established by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the IGRA and 25 C.F.R. 291 in the event that the state and the Tribe were unable to agree on a compact. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the contract would allow the would allow the Tribe to develop uses that would improve the long-term economic condition of its organization and its members through the development of a stable, sustainable source of employment and revenue. Revenues generated from the economic development would be used to improve the quality of life of Tribe members by supporting social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services. Revenues could also be used to provide capital for other revenue-generating activities, for contributions to charitable organizations, and for the funding of local government activities. The resort would employ 2,400 workers NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Acreage developed for the resort would displace wildlife habitat, including wetland habitat, as well as agricultural land, including pastureland, and significantly alter surface hydrology within the development site; however, the development area for the proposed action is less biologically sensitive than other development sites under consideration, and the proposed action includes a connection to local, off-site wastewater treatment plants, not proposed under the other actions alternatives. Traffic generated by activities at the resort would add significantly to congestion of the regional transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000 and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0068D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090050, Final EIS--1,444 pages and maps; Appendices I--2,511 pages and maps, Appendices II--1,621 pages, Appendices III--2,827 pages. Appendices IV--2,479 pages, Appendices V--2,921 pages, Appendices VI--381 pages and maps, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - California KW - Graton Rancheria Restoration Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GRATON+RANCHERIA+CASINO+AND+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+SONOMA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Indian Gaming Commission, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTANORE PROJECT, SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16389888; 13781 AB - PURPOSE: A copper and silver underground mine and associated electric transmission line located about 18 miles south of Libby near the Cabinet Mountains, Sanders County and Lincoln County, Montana are proposed. The ore body is beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, but all access and surface facilities would be located outside of the wilderness. Montanore Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mines Management, Inc., would be the project's owner and operator. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to acid rock drainage and near neutral pH metal leaching, surface and ground water, fish and aquatic habitat, scenic areas, endangered wildlife, and wetlands. Four mine alternatives and five transmission line alternatives, including No Action alternatives for each component (Alternative 1 and Alternative A, respectively), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, the proposed mine alternative, the mill and mine production adits would be located in the upper Ramsey Creek drainage, about 0.5 mile east of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness boundary. An additional adit would be located on private land in the Libby Creek drainage, and a vertical opening would be built for ventilation on MMCs two patented mining claims adjacent to Rock Lake. A tailings impoundment would require the diversion of Little Cherry Creek. Two land application disposal (LAD) areas would allow for discharge of water and waste rock would be stored temporarily at one LAD area. MMC would upgrade National Forest System (NFS) Road 278 (Bear Creek Road), NFS road 4781 (Ramsey Creek Road), and NFS road 2316 (Upper Libby Creek Road). The operating permit area would encompass 3,628 acres. Under Alternative B, the proposed transmission line alternative, a new, 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line would provide power to the mill and other mine facilities. A new Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) substation site would be located at the Noxon-Libby 230-kV transmission line in Sedlak Park, about 30 miles southeast of Libby. MMCs proposed transmission line would head northwest from the substation for about 1 mile paralleling U.S. 2, and then follow the Fisher River and U.S. 2 north about 3.3 miles. The alignment would turn west and follow the Miller Creek drainage for 2.5 miles, then turn northwest and traverse up a tributary to Miller Creek, then cross into the upper Midas Creek drainage, and then down to Howard and Libby Creek drainages. The alignment would cross the low ridge between Libby Creek and Ramsey Creek, and then would generally follow Ramsey Creek to the Ramsey Plant Site. All structures would be steel monopoles and helicopter would be used for vegetation clearing and structure placement would be at MMCs discretion. Alternative 3 (Poorman Impoundment Alternative) would relocate 4 major mine facilities to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impacts. and would develop a tailings impoundment site north of Poorman Creek. Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3, but would modify the proposed Little Cherry Creek tailings impoundment to protect riparian habitat conservation areas. Alternative C would modify the transmission line by routing it on an east-facing ridge north of the Sedlak Park substation instead of following the Fisher River. Alternative D would further modify the transmission line proposal with regard to structures, helicopter use, and vegetation clearing and Alternative E would route the line on the north side of West Fisher Creek to minimize effects on grizzly bear habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the orderly and economic mining of copper and silver from deposits contained in northwestern Montana to meet a portion of current and future public demands while ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and related activities would disturb 2,582 acres. The mineral deposit proposed for mining would have low to moderate risk of acid generation. Periodic short-term increases in sediment would occur in streams in the Libby Creek watershed and operations would alter flow in Libby Creek and its tributaries. Little Cherry Creek would be diverted permanently around the tailings impoundment, resulting in a loss of 13,000 feet of aquatic habitat, and reduced flows in East Fork Rock Creek and East Fork Bull River would affect bull trout habitat. The proposed project would require the unavoidable filling of up to 38 acres of wetlands. Mine area habitat of grizzly bear, gray wolf and Canada lynx would be affected permanently, although proposed land acquisition programs would reduce impacts. Construction of the proposed transmission line would temporarily displace 12,582 to 16,501 acres of grizzly bear habitat, and 18 to 56 acres of riparian habitat conservation areas would be affected. Mining and transmission facilities would alter the scenic integrity from key observation points. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090048, Draft EIS (Volume I)--481 pages and maps, Draft EIS (Volume II)--596 pages, Appendices--425 pages, CD-ROM, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Mines KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cabinet Mountains Wilderness KW - Kootenai National Forest KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16389888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+SANDERS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=MONTANORE+PROJECT%2C+SANDERS+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO CREEK WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN / WATERSHED STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT PROCESS (SAMP/WSAA PROCESS), SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16384353; 13782 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of two arrangements to streamline and otherwise improve the ability of federal and state authorities to issue permits for projects resulting in alteration of the San Diego Creek watershed in San Diego County, California is proposed in this final programmatic EIS. The arrangements, known as Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) and the Watershed Streambed Alteration Agreement Process (WSAA), would provide new frameworks for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game in addressing permit applications. The underlying goal of the SAMP would be to support riparian ecosystem conservation and management by comprehensively assessing the watershed's aquatic resources and developing a strategic and coordinated regulatory approach encompassing permitting and mitigation. The overarching principles for the watershed based on knowledge of watershed resources would include: 1) no net loss of acreage and functionality of jurisdictional waters of the U.S.; 2) maintenance or restoration of hydrologic, water quality, and habitat integrity; 3) protection of headwater areas; 4) maintenance, protection, or restoration of diverse and continuous riparian corridors; 5) maintenance or restoration of floodplain connections; 6) maintenance and/or restoration of sediment and transport equilibria; 7) maintenance of aquatic buffers for protected riparian corridors; and 8) protection of riparian areas and associated habitats supporting sensitive species and their habitats. Applying these principles, an analytical framework based on a landscape-level functional assessment of the watershed's riparian ecosystem would be completed. Using this framework, a watershed-specific permitting process would be developed incorporating resource-based permitting protocols. The remaining two components of the system would involve development of a strategic mitigation plan and a mitigation coordination program. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers three alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative, which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process; 2) denial of all permits that would encroach on state or federal jurisdictional areas of either of the principal agencies; 3) denial of all permits that would encroach on jurisdiction areas of the principals, excepting permits for bridges and utility lines, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis; and 4) a general plan build-out which would maintain the existing case-by-case permitting process and assume that there would be no local requirements for preservation or conservation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP/WSAA arrangements would prioritize avoidance of impacts to high quality aquatic resources and provide for targeted enhancement and restoration measures related to regulatory actions that would maintain and improve the watershed's aquatic resource functions and values over the long-term. SAMP would increase the cooperation and coordination of federal, state, and local governments as well as state and federal resource agencies, local landowners, and other stakeholders. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities resulting from the permitting process that would temporarily or permanently affect watershed resources, including stream channels and banks, associated wetlands and other riparian lands, and forest and meadow vegetation, would include grading, stockpiling, trenching, construction and use of culverts, sediment removal, temporary stream and permanent diversions, dewatering, construction of temporary and permanent access roads and bridges and culverts, fire abatement and fuels management measures, clearance of work areas, stormwater management, and residential, commercial, and industrial land development. Habitat and habitat corridors, including resources for sensitive species, would be lost or degraded in some cases, though such losses would be mitigated, when possible, by creation of habitat elsewhere. Cultural resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed. 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 08-0224D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 090049, Final EIS-588 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Errata--301 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Land Use KW - Regulations KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - San Diego Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+CREEK+WATERSHED+SPECIAL+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+%2F+WATERSHED+STREAMBED+ALTERATION+AGREEMENT+PROCESS+%28SAMP%2FWSAA+PROCESS%29%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLEY LAND CUT PORTION OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, GULF SHORES AND ORANGE BEACH, BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA. AN - 15227101; 13780 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of federal permits for the development of 17 marinas along the Foley Land Cut (FLC) portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in southern Baldwin County, Alabama is proposed. The FLC is a federally authorized and maintained commercial shipping channel extending approximately 10 miles from Wolf Bay in the east to Oyster Bay in the west. The majority of the FLC is within the city limits of Gulf Shores; and the area east of the Foley Beach Expressway is in the city limits of Orange Beach. The permit applications submitted propose construction of 15 mixed-use developments along the FLC consisting of 17 marinas, in excess of 16,700 condominium units, 1,722 wet boat slips, 1,742 dry boat storage spaces, various commercial establishments, support facilities, and resort amenities such as pools, boardwalks, and restroom facilities. The proposed projects would be situated in south Baldwin County on 15 parcels of land, of which 14 are along the northern shoreline of the FLC and are generally bounded to the north by Baldwin County Road 4. The fifteenth parcel of land proposed for development lies along the Oyster Bay southern shoreline, south of the FLC. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to waterway capacity, socioeconomic impacts, infrastructure impacts, biological and natural resources, water quality, and hurricane evacuation. Three alternatives, including a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The Maximum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 2), would approve permits for up to 3,093 boat slips on the FLC through the year 2025. The Minimum Boat Slip Alternative (Alternative 3), which is the preferred alternative, would initially approve permits for 1,818 boat slips through the first year of construction, with the option of phasing in 1,150 additional boat slips until the maximum number of slips (3,093) was reached. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would meet the market demand for resort locations with waterfront location and access but less exposure to hurricane damage, for wet and dry storage of watercraft, and for convenient and safe access to recreational boating and fishing. The marina facilities would complement on-site mixed-use resort communities. Development would have beneficial economic impacts and provide additional recreational, retail, and commercial facilities and services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed projects would impact approximately 711 acres and require excavation of approximately 3.1 million cubic yards of material from uplands, wetlands, and waterbottoms. Undeveloped pine habitat and narrow marsh fringe along the northern shoreline of the FLC, would be replaced by impervious land cover. A total of 2.06 acres of wetlands would be impacted by dredging and filling. Full development would bring an expected increase of approximately 85,640 vehicles per day on roads and would increase the hurricane-evacuating population to 283,000. Public shelter demand in the event of a hurricane would increase from 17,500 to 19,800 evacuees. Implementation would more than double boat traffic on the FLC and noise levels would increase accordingly. Increased light pollution would impair boater vision and increase the risk of accidents. Development and population growth could reduce available groundwater and lead to possible saltwater intrusion. Implementation would degrade visual aesthetics. Increased density of boats on the FLC would raise the potential for conflicts between recreational and commercial boaters and boating accidents. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 090047, 224 pages, February 20, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Community Development KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Navigation KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Safety KW - Salinity KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 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/15227101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.title=FOLEY+LAND+CUT+PORTION+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%2C+GULF+SHORES+AND+ORANGE+BEACH%2C+BALDWIN+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 20, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS ANGELES REGIONAL DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LOS ANGELES REGIONAL DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126525; 13771-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) to address the long-term need for disposal of contaminated sediments dredged from the ports and harbors of Los Angeles County is proposed in this programmatic draft EIS (PEIS). This DMMP does not promote any specific plan or alternative, but programmatically maps out the range of projects and alternatives in the Los Angeles region and their impacts according to a range of scenarios. Three project scenarios were developed along with a No Action scenario in which regional dredging would continue without programmatic analysis or a management plan: Channel Deepening and Capital Improvement Project Dredging (Scenario 1) consisting primarily of uncontaminated sediment; Navigation Channel and Turning Basin Maintenance Dredging (Scenario 2) consisting of a mix of clean and contaminated material with a high sand content; and Berth Maintenance Dredging (Scenario 3) consisting of primarily fine-grained sediments containing clean and contaminated material. Previous studies, tests, and monitoring programs led to the development of 13 feasible management alternatives for the range of project scenarios and these alternatives fall into three categories: temporary storage, treatment, and disposal. Temporary storage alternatives are Aquatic Submerged (Alternative 1A) and Upland Near Shore (Alternative 1B); treatment alternatives are Sand Separation (Alternative 2A), Immobilization Alternative 2B, and Chemical Removal (Alternative} 2C); and disposal alternatives are Ocean Disposal (Alternative 3A), Beach Nourishment (Alternative 3B), Near Shore Beach Nourishment (Alternative 3C), Near Shore Confined Disposal Facility (Alternative 3D), Confined Upland Fill (Alternative 3E), Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal (Alternative 3F), Upland Class III Landfill (Alternative 3G), and Shallow Water Habitat (Alternative 3H). Identification of suitable disposal alternatives for contaminated sediments has been a contentious issue in the region and ongoing evaluation of economic, environmental, political and public perception issues is required to assess the success of the DMMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Los Angeles DMMP would establish preliminary dredged material disposal sediment threshold levels and local best management practices for dredging and disposal of contaminated and non-contaminated marine sediments. Bench-scale and pilot-scale projects to assess the viability of various treatment alternatives for contaminated sediments will be implemented. Long-term productivity of fisheries would be improved and removal of contaminated sediments would reduce toxicity to fish and benefit people who consume marine species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementing the DMMP would require both renewable and non-renewable energy and material resources for dredging and disposal. Aquatic resources would be lost by the construction of Combined Aquatic Disposal sites or Combined Disposal Facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 090038, 494 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fisheries KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazards KW - Landfills KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sands KW - Shores KW - Alamitos Bay KW - California KW - Santa Monica Bay KW - San Pedro Bay KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+ANGELES+REGIONAL+DREDGE+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+ANGELES+REGIONAL+DREDGE+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 3 LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 3 LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825159; 13773-090040_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sutter and Sacramento Counties, California, is proposed. The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed to provide 100-year flood protection and to incorporate the NLIP into the Natomas components of the federally authorized American Rivers Common Features Project and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with Federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. The Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project would include improvements affecting approximately 13 miles of the levee system and would focus on underseepage, erosion, encroachment, and levee height deficiencies along 4.5 miles of the Sacramento River east levee, 3.2 miles of the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) west levee, and 6.2 miles of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) west levee. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are proposed in this draft EIS. The Adjacent Setback Levee Alternative (proposed alternative) would construct a raised setback levee from north of Elverta Road to just south of Interstate 5 along the east bank of the Sacramento River, with cutoff walls, seepage beams, and relief wells to reduce seepage. The proposed alternative would also address deficiencies affecting the PGCC and NEMDC levees by raising, flattening, and widening levee slopes, and the construction of cutoff walls. In addition, this alternative would provide for relocation of approximately 9,400 feet of the Elkhorn Canal, construction of a new drainage canal downstream of Elkhorn Reservoir, reconstruction of the Reclamation District 1000 Pumping Plant No. 2, realignment and relocation of local irrigation and drainage canals, removal of encroachments, and reconfiguration of the Airport West Ditch. The second action alternative, the Levee Raise-in-Place Alternative, would be the same as the proposed alternative except for levee raising, seepage remediation, and removal of encroachments along the Sacramento River east levee. Construction of the Phase 3 Project would require approximately 2.4 million cubic yards of earthen fill material plus 66,000 tons of aggregate base. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, reduce the risk of the release of toxic and hazardous materials that could contaminate groundwater, and prevent damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. Implementation of the proposed plan would prevent designation of the area as a special flood hazard area, a designation that would preclude new development. Proposed modifications to the irrigation distribution and agricultural drainage systems would allow for dewatering the Airport West Ditch, reducing its attractiveness to wildlife and the associated potential for bird-aircraft strikes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions and permanently convert 362 acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance in the Natomas Basin. Borrow material needed for construction would be obtained from existing rice and field crop lands and estimates are that rice production would be lost for one year, and field crop production would be lost for two years. Project components would require substantial land acquisition, temporary increases in traffic of up to 1,000 trips per day for the Sacramento River east levee and up to 200 trips per day for the PGCC, and temporary closure of approximately 1,000 feet of Garden Highway for eight to 12 weeks. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090040, Volume I--411 pages and maps, Volume II--555 pages, February 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+3+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+3+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 3 LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 3 LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SUTTER AND SACRAMENTO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824916; 13773-090040_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sutter and Sacramento Counties, California, is proposed. The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed to provide 100-year flood protection and to incorporate the NLIP into the Natomas components of the federally authorized American Rivers Common Features Project and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with Federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. The Phase 3 Landside Improvements Project would include improvements affecting approximately 13 miles of the levee system and would focus on underseepage, erosion, encroachment, and levee height deficiencies along 4.5 miles of the Sacramento River east levee, 3.2 miles of the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) west levee, and 6.2 miles of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) west levee. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are proposed in this draft EIS. The Adjacent Setback Levee Alternative (proposed alternative) would construct a raised setback levee from north of Elverta Road to just south of Interstate 5 along the east bank of the Sacramento River, with cutoff walls, seepage beams, and relief wells to reduce seepage. The proposed alternative would also address deficiencies affecting the PGCC and NEMDC levees by raising, flattening, and widening levee slopes, and the construction of cutoff walls. In addition, this alternative would provide for relocation of approximately 9,400 feet of the Elkhorn Canal, construction of a new drainage canal downstream of Elkhorn Reservoir, reconstruction of the Reclamation District 1000 Pumping Plant No. 2, realignment and relocation of local irrigation and drainage canals, removal of encroachments, and reconfiguration of the Airport West Ditch. The second action alternative, the Levee Raise-in-Place Alternative, would be the same as the proposed alternative except for levee raising, seepage remediation, and removal of encroachments along the Sacramento River east levee. Construction of the Phase 3 Project would require approximately 2.4 million cubic yards of earthen fill material plus 66,000 tons of aggregate base. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, reduce the risk of the release of toxic and hazardous materials that could contaminate groundwater, and prevent damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. Implementation of the proposed plan would prevent designation of the area as a special flood hazard area, a designation that would preclude new development. Proposed modifications to the irrigation distribution and agricultural drainage systems would allow for dewatering the Airport West Ditch, reducing its attractiveness to wildlife and the associated potential for bird-aircraft strikes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed alternative would contribute to air pollutant emissions and permanently convert 362 acres of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance in the Natomas Basin. Borrow material needed for construction would be obtained from existing rice and field crop lands and estimates are that rice production would be lost for one year, and field crop production would be lost for two years. Project components would require substantial land acquisition, temporary increases in traffic of up to 1,000 trips per day for the Sacramento River east levee and up to 200 trips per day for the PGCC, and temporary closure of approximately 1,000 feet of Garden Highway for eight to 12 weeks. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 090040, Volume I--411 pages and maps, Volume II--555 pages, February 12, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+3+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+3+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SUTTER+AND+SACRAMENTO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS ANGELES REGIONAL DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36343634; 13771 AB - PURPOSE: A Dredge Material Management Plan (DMMP) to address the long-term need for disposal of contaminated sediments dredged from the ports and harbors of Los Angeles County is proposed in this programmatic draft EIS (PEIS). This DMMP does not promote any specific plan or alternative, but programmatically maps out the range of projects and alternatives in the Los Angeles region and their impacts according to a range of scenarios. Three project scenarios were developed along with a No Action scenario in which regional dredging would continue without programmatic analysis or a management plan: Channel Deepening and Capital Improvement Project Dredging (Scenario 1) consisting primarily of uncontaminated sediment; Navigation Channel and Turning Basin Maintenance Dredging (Scenario 2) consisting of a mix of clean and contaminated material with a high sand content; and Berth Maintenance Dredging (Scenario 3) consisting of primarily fine-grained sediments containing clean and contaminated material. Previous studies, tests, and monitoring programs led to the development of 13 feasible management alternatives for the range of project scenarios and these alternatives fall into three categories: temporary storage, treatment, and disposal. Temporary storage alternatives are Aquatic Submerged (Alternative 1A) and Upland Near Shore (Alternative 1B); treatment alternatives are Sand Separation (Alternative 2A), Immobilization Alternative 2B, and Chemical Removal (Alternative} 2C); and disposal alternatives are Ocean Disposal (Alternative 3A), Beach Nourishment (Alternative 3B), Near Shore Beach Nourishment (Alternative 3C), Near Shore Confined Disposal Facility (Alternative 3D), Confined Upland Fill (Alternative 3E), Submerged Confined Aquatic Disposal (Alternative 3F), Upland Class III Landfill (Alternative 3G), and Shallow Water Habitat (Alternative 3H). Identification of suitable disposal alternatives for contaminated sediments has been a contentious issue in the region and ongoing evaluation of economic, environmental, political and public perception issues is required to assess the success of the DMMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Los Angeles DMMP would establish preliminary dredged material disposal sediment threshold levels and local best management practices for dredging and disposal of contaminated and non-contaminated marine sediments. Bench-scale and pilot-scale projects to assess the viability of various treatment alternatives for contaminated sediments will be implemented. Long-term productivity of fisheries would be improved and removal of contaminated sediments would reduce toxicity to fish and benefit people who consume marine species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementing the DMMP would require both renewable and non-renewable energy and material resources for dredging and disposal. Aquatic resources would be lost by the construction of Combined Aquatic Disposal sites or Combined Disposal Facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 090038, 494 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 12, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fisheries KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Health Hazards KW - Landfills KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sands KW - Shores KW - Alamitos Bay KW - California KW - Santa Monica Bay KW - San Pedro Bay KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+ANGELES+REGIONAL+DREDGE+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+ANGELES+REGIONAL+DREDGE+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 12, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824604; 13768-090035_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824599; 13768-090035_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824591; 13768-090035_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824582; 13768-090035_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824570; 13768-090035_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824564; 13768-090035_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824557; 13768-090035_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824548; 13768-090035_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824547; 13768-090035_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824538; 13768-090035_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824528; 13768-090035_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756824524; 13768-090035_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36344228; 13768 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along approximately 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse approximately 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and approximately 6.4 miles of land owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind Substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kV transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary, limited impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality; and noise levels during construction would violate local standards and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090035, Volume 1--872 pages, Volume 2--992 pages, Volume 3--376 pages, Volume 4--401 pages, Maps and Figures--CR-ROM, February 10, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127006; 13717-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127000; 13717-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126991; 13717-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126982; 13717-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126896; 13717-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126887; 13717-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126873; 13717-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126396; 13717-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126220; 13717-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126214; 13717-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126200; 13717-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - MISSISSIPPI COASTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (MSCIP), HANCOCK, HARRISON, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126099; 13717-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reduce hurricane and other storm damage, restore ecosystem components, control erosion, and prevent saltwater intrusion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties, Mississippi is proposed. The three major Gulf hurricanes of 2005 caused and unprecedented level of destruction within the Gulf region, most notably in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Significant secondary impacts resulted from the migration of the displaced population, disrupting the economy and placing extreme stress on infrastructure and public services elsewhere in the South. Coastal ecosystems and the associated fish and wildlife habitat were devastated. Saltwater intrusion within the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associate coastal environment caused serious degradation of ecosystem values. Hurricane-induced erosion of coastal wetlands and coastal infrastructure within the three-County study area under consideration was also serious. The recommended plan would provide system-wide and site-specific structural and non-structural solutions to the problem areas identified in the authorizing appropriations legislation. More specifically, the plan would include coastal wetland and forest restoration in the watersheds of Turkey and Franklin creeks and Bayou Cumbest, in the Dantzler area, and on Admiral Island; implementation of a submerged aquatic vegetation restoration pilot project; coast-wide beach and dune restoration on mainland beaches; relations of Moss Point municipal infrastructure relocation; implementation of a waveland flood proofing pilot project; and implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project in Forest Heights. A Deer Island restoration project has also been developed sufficiently to allow authorization of implementation upon coordination with additional environmental document. These projects would include a high hazard area risk reduction component for 2,000 properties and a comprehensive barrier islands restoration component. Cost of the recommended Alternative is estimated at $785 million to $1.2 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Combined with the integrated Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Plan, the plan would provide system-wide solutions for dealing with the devastation caused by the storms of 2005 over a multi-state region along the Gulf Coast. Infrastructure and other forms of shoreline restoration and improvement would provide greater resiliency with respect to future storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Gulf dredging and deposition onto shorelines of sand and other sediments would result in the destruction of benthos and the release of sediments into the water column. Deposition would also destroy benthic habitat permanently. Other ecosystem restoration activities would temporarily displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and displace fish habitat, but the long-term effect of the project would to increase viable habitat and balance ecosystem components that are currently in a state of disarray. Implementation of the restoration plan would result in the displacement of numerous residences and businesses, particularly on Deer Island. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-148), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Act of 2007. JF - EPA number: 090034, 361 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Safety Analyses KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Shores KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+COASTAL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM+%28MSCIP%29%2C+HANCOCK%2C+HARRISON%2C+AND+JACKSON+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APPRECIATION FACILITIES (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APPRECIATION FACILITIES (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). AN - 756824607; 13716-090033_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The channelization of the Forche Bayou and, more particularly, the related acquisition of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood forest located in the bayou basin in Pulaski County, Arkansas to provide flood control and related natural resource preservation and recreational uses are reevaluated in this final supplement to the final EIS on the project. Fourche Bottoms is a highly productive ecosystem within the City limits of Little Rock that is threatened with degradation. Its hydrologic regime is integral to that of Fourche Creek. Within the basin's 160 square miles, the bottoms are the last remaining significant tract of natural bottomland hardwoods. This highly productive habitat type is in short supply in Arkansas and the nation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ASA(CW) issued a Record of Decision, dated 31 May 1983, that excluded the 1,750-acre Fourche Bottoms acquisition with the nature appreciation facilities from Federal participation as these lands were not necessary for the flood damage reduction project to function properly. The flood control portion of the project was constructed. In April 2000 after requests from the City of Little Rock, the ASA(CW) stated that a limited reevaluation report (LRR) would be prepared to decide whether to budget for the work not implemented: the 1,750-acre acquisition with nature appreciation facilities. The reevaluation found that the bottomland acquisition for environmental protection and flood reduction with nature appreciation facilities is consistent with policy. The selected bottomland acres areas are within the floodplain, connected by the creeks/flood control channel and are generally contiguous although separated by road and railroad crossings. The proposed recreation facilities would include 3 miles of trails and boardwalks, bridges, restrooms, signage, parking, and an access road. The recreation features would have a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8. The bottomland acquisition component is estimated to cost a total of $5,185,000. The 1,750-acre acquisition is estimated to cost $2.6 million, the LRR is estimated to cost $520,000, and the nature appreciation facilities are estimated to cost $2.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the flood control aspects of the project by removing floodplain land from potential development that would be prone to flooding, the land acquisition would also preserve and interpret the wetlands for public recreational and educational uses. An incremental analysis of the bottomland acquisition found that acquiring the entire 1,750 acres would result in the greatest increase to the wetland values and functions with an incremental cost per output of $2,337. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project-related construction activities could result in temporary and minor impacts to water quality and some loss of habitat in the immediate project area; however, none of the impacts have been determined to warrant further investigation or mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 06-0057D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090033, 321 pages, February 3, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arkansas KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1988, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APPRECIATION+FACILITIES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APPRECIATION+FACILITIES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APPRECIATION FACILITIES (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2005). AN - 16375329; 13716 AB - PURPOSE: The channelization of the Forche Bayou and, more particularly, the related acquisition of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood forest located in the bayou basin in Pulaski County, Arkansas to provide flood control and related natural resource preservation and recreational uses are reevaluated in this final supplement to the final EIS on the project. Fourche Bottoms is a highly productive ecosystem within the City limits of Little Rock that is threatened with degradation. Its hydrologic regime is integral to that of Fourche Creek. Within the basin's 160 square miles, the bottoms are the last remaining significant tract of natural bottomland hardwoods. This highly productive habitat type is in short supply in Arkansas and the nation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ASA(CW) issued a Record of Decision, dated 31 May 1983, that excluded the 1,750-acre Fourche Bottoms acquisition with the nature appreciation facilities from Federal participation as these lands were not necessary for the flood damage reduction project to function properly. The flood control portion of the project was constructed. In April 2000 after requests from the City of Little Rock, the ASA(CW) stated that a limited reevaluation report (LRR) would be prepared to decide whether to budget for the work not implemented: the 1,750-acre acquisition with nature appreciation facilities. The reevaluation found that the bottomland acquisition for environmental protection and flood reduction with nature appreciation facilities is consistent with policy. The selected bottomland acres areas are within the floodplain, connected by the creeks/flood control channel and are generally contiguous although separated by road and railroad crossings. The proposed recreation facilities would include 3 miles of trails and boardwalks, bridges, restrooms, signage, parking, and an access road. The recreation features would have a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8. The bottomland acquisition component is estimated to cost a total of $5,185,000. The 1,750-acre acquisition is estimated to cost $2.6 million, the LRR is estimated to cost $520,000, and the nature appreciation facilities are estimated to cost $2.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the flood control aspects of the project by removing floodplain land from potential development that would be prone to flooding, the land acquisition would also preserve and interpret the wetlands for public recreational and educational uses. An incremental analysis of the bottomland acquisition found that acquiring the entire 1,750 acres would result in the greatest increase to the wetland values and functions with an incremental cost per output of $2,337. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project-related construction activities could result in temporary and minor impacts to water quality and some loss of habitat in the immediate project area; however, none of the impacts have been determined to warrant further investigation or mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 06-0057D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090033, 321 pages, February 3, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arkansas KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1988, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APPRECIATION+FACILITIES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.title=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APPRECIATION+FACILITIES+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2005%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Equilibrium and column adsorption studies of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) on surface modified granular activated carbons. AN - 67017491; 19278158 AB - 2,4-Dinitroanisole (DNAN) is used as a component extensively in the development of insensitive munitions. This may result in release of DNAN into the environment. Here, the results are reported of a study on the removal characteristics of DNAN through adsorption on granular activated carbon (GAC), chitosan coated granular activated carbon (CGAC), acid treated granular activated carbon (AGAC) and alkali treated granular activated carbon (BGAC) under equilibrium and column flow conditions. The effect of pH, contact time, concentration of DNAN, and presence of electrolytes on the uptake of DNAN by the adsorbents was investigated. The equilibrium data were fitted to different types of adsorption isotherms. The data were further analysed on the basis of Lagergren first-order, pseudo second-order and intraparticle diffusion kinetic models. Breakthrough curves were obtained based on column flow results. All the adsorbents were capable of removing about 99% of DNAN from aqueous media, except CGAC which adsorbed about 87% of DNAN. JF - Environmental technology AU - Boddu, V M AU - Abburi, K AU - Fredricksen, A J AU - Maloney, S W AU - Damavarapu, R AD - Environmental Processes Branch, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, USA. veera.boddu@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 173 EP - 181 VL - 30 IS - 2 SN - 0959-3330, 0959-3330 KW - Anisoles KW - 0 KW - Electrolytes KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Water KW - 059QF0KO0R KW - Charcoal KW - 16291-96-6 KW - 2,4-dinitroanisole KW - 1L0OD70295 KW - Chitosan KW - 9012-76-4 KW - Index Medicus KW - Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared KW - Thermodynamics KW - Electrolytes -- chemistry KW - Kinetics KW - Hydrogen-Ion Concentration KW - Chitosan -- chemistry KW - Adsorption KW - Water -- analysis KW - Anisoles -- isolation & purification KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- isolation & purification KW - Chemical Fractionation -- methods KW - Charcoal -- chemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67017491?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+technology&rft.atitle=Equilibrium+and+column+adsorption+studies+of+2%2C4-dinitroanisole+%28DNAN%29+on+surface+modified+granular+activated+carbons.&rft.au=Boddu%2C+V+M%3BAbburi%2C+K%3BFredricksen%2C+A+J%3BMaloney%2C+S+W%3BDamavarapu%2C+R&rft.aulast=Boddu&rft.aufirst=V&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=173&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+technology&rft.issn=09593330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F09593330802422993 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-03-30 N1 - Date created - 2009-03-12 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330802422993 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Use of the thyrocyte sodium iodide symporter as the basis for a perchlorate cell-based assay. AN - 66863651; 19173056 AB - Perchlorates are strong oxidants widely employed in military and civilian energetic materials and recently have been scrutinized as persistent environmental pollutants. The perchlorate anion, ClO(4)(-), is a well-known and potent competitive inhibitor of iodide transport by the sodium iodide symporter (NIS) expressed in the basolateral membranes of thyroid follicular cells (thyrocytes). Iodide uptake by thyroid follicular cells is rapid and reproducible. The competitive radiotransporter assay in this study shows promise as a rapid and convenient method to assay for ClO(4)(-) in water samples at the nM level. This work describes the initial efforts to define the assay conditions that enhance NIS selectivity for ClO(4)(-). Experiments of 10 min co-incubation of ClO(4)(-) and (125)I(-) demonstrate a more significant effect on (125)I(-) transport, with a quantifiable ClO(4)(-) concentration range of 50 nM (5 ppb) to 2 microM (200 ppb), and IC(50) of 180 nM (18 ppb), nearly three-fold lower than previous reports. Since the IC(50) in our assay for other known competitor anions (SCN(-), ClO(3)(-), NO(3)(-)) remains unchanged from previous research, the increased sensitivity for ClO(4)(-) also produces a three-fold enhancement in selectivity. In addition to the possible applicability of the thyrocyte to the development of a cellular perchlorate biosensor, we propose that the high affinity of the NIS for ClO(4)(-) also creates the potential for exploiting this membrane protein as a selective, sensitive, and broadly applicable biomechanical mechanism for controlled movement and concentration of perchlorate. JF - The Analyst AU - MacAllister, Irene E AU - Jakoby, Michael G AU - Geryk, Bruce AU - Schneider, Roger L AU - Cropek, Donald M AD - U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL 61822, USA. Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 320 EP - 324 VL - 134 IS - 2 KW - Iodine Radioisotopes KW - 0 KW - Perchlorates KW - Symporters KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - sodium-iodide symporter KW - perchlorate KW - VLA4NZX2P4 KW - Index Medicus KW - Sensitivity and Specificity KW - Humans KW - Cell Culture Techniques KW - Biological Assay KW - Iodine Radioisotopes -- metabolism KW - Inhibitory Concentration 50 KW - Environmental Monitoring -- methods KW - Thyroid Gland -- metabolism KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Symporters -- metabolism KW - Perchlorates -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66863651?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Analyst&rft.atitle=Use+of+the+thyrocyte+sodium+iodide+symporter+as+the+basis+for+a+perchlorate+cell-based+assay.&rft.au=MacAllister%2C+Irene+E%3BJakoby%2C+Michael+G%3BGeryk%2C+Bruce%3BSchneider%2C+Roger+L%3BCropek%2C+Donald+M&rft.aulast=MacAllister&rft.aufirst=Irene&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=320&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Analyst&rft.issn=1364-5528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1039%2Fb802710b LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-10-09 N1 - Date created - 2009-01-28 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b802710b ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Cosubstrate independent mineralization of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) by a Desulfovibrio species under anaerobic conditions. AN - 66779476; 18459059 AB - Past handling practices associated with the manufacturing and processing of the high explosive hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) has resulted in extensive environmental contamination. In-situ biodegradation is a promising technology for remediating RDX contaminated sites but often relies on the addition of a cosubstrate. A sulfate-reducing bacterium isolated from an RDX-degrading enrichment culture was studied for its ability to grow on RDX as a sole source of carbon and nitrogen and for its ability to mineralize RDX in the absence of a cosubstrate. The results showed the isolate degraded 140 muM RDX in 63 days when grown on RDX as a carbon source. Biomass within the carbon limited culture increased 9-fold compared to the RDX unamended controls. When the isolate was incubated with RDX as sole source of nitrogen it degraded 160 muM RDX in 41 days and exhibited a 4-fold increase in biomass compared to RDX unamended controls. Radiolabeled studies under carbon limiting conditions with (14)C-hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine confirmed mineralization of the cyclic nitramine. After 60 days incubation 26% of the radiolabel was recovered as (14)CO(2), while in the control bottles less than 1% of the radiolabel was recovered as (14)CO(2). Additionally, approximately 2% of the radiolabeled carbon was found to be associated with the biomass. The 16S rDNA gene was sequenced and identified the isolate as a novel species of Desulfovibrio, having a 95.1% sequence similarity to Desulfovibrio desulfuricans. This is the first known anaerobic bacterium capable of mineralizing RDX when using it as a carbon and energy source for growth. JF - Biodegradation AU - Arnett, Clint M AU - Adrian, Neal R AD - US Army Engineer Research & Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL 61822, USA. Clint.Arnett@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 15 EP - 26 VL - 20 IS - 1 KW - DNA, Ribosomal KW - 0 KW - Triazines KW - Carbon KW - 7440-44-0 KW - Nitrogen KW - N762921K75 KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - Index Medicus KW - Phylogeny KW - Microscopy, Phase-Contrast KW - Carbon -- metabolism KW - Biodegradation, Environmental KW - Nitrogen -- metabolism KW - Anaerobiosis KW - Microscopy, Electron, Scanning KW - Deltaproteobacteria -- metabolism KW - Triazines -- metabolism KW - Triazines -- chemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66779476?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biodegradation&rft.atitle=Cosubstrate+independent+mineralization+of+hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-triazine+%28RDX%29+by+a+Desulfovibrio+species+under+anaerobic+conditions.&rft.au=Arnett%2C+Clint+M%3BAdrian%2C+Neal+R&rft.aulast=Arnett&rft.aufirst=Clint&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=15&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biodegradation&rft.issn=1572-9729&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10532-008-9195-1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-10-01 N1 - Date created - 2008-12-30 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10532-008-9195-1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of proposed dam removal on ice jamming and bridge scour on the Clark Fork River, Montana AN - 50428282; 2009-051125 AB - The Milltown Dam, at the confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers in Montana, lies at the downstream end of the nation's largest Superfund Project. Since its construction in 1906, several hundred thousand tonnes of metal-contaminated sediment from upstream mining activities, primarily copper, have accumulated in the dam impoundment. A large amount of this sediment was scoured during a 1996 ice jam event on Clark Fork and Blackfoot Rivers and transported downstream. The EPA remediation plan calls for phased removal and off-site disposal of much of the contaminated sediment, and removal of the Milltown Dam and a smaller mill dam upstream on the Blackfoot River. As much as possible, the river channels will be restored to their pre-project natural morphology. This study assessed ice impacts associated with the restoration plan, specifically where ice jams and related ice jam scour might occur with and without the dams in place. Also addressed was the effect of dam removal on potential ice-related scour around the piers of five bridges that cross the Blackfoot River just upstream of the Milltown Dam. Because this type of problem is relatively new, relevant engineering guidelines are lacking. Shortcomings of the tools and methods used are discussed. It is hoped that the study described herein will assist those addressing similar problems in the future, and also point to areas where analysis methods and tools could be improved. JF - Cold Regions Science and Technology AU - Tuthill, Andrew M AU - White, K D AU - Vuyovich, C M AU - Daniels, L A A2 - Hicks, Faye Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 186 EP - 194 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 55 IS - 2 SN - 0165-232X, 0165-232X KW - United States KW - river ice KW - Missoula County Montana KW - erosion KW - stream sediments KW - ice jams KW - Clark Fork KW - remediation KW - mitigation KW - transport KW - ice KW - dams KW - sediments KW - hydrodynamics KW - discharge KW - heavy metals KW - Superfund sites KW - scour KW - hydrology KW - mines KW - pollution KW - Montana KW - models KW - fluvial environment KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50428282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.atitle=Effects+of+proposed+dam+removal+on+ice+jamming+and+bridge+scour+on+the+Clark+Fork+River%2C+Montana&rft.au=Tuthill%2C+Andrew+M%3BWhite%2C+K+D%3BVuyovich%2C+C+M%3BDaniels%2C+L+A&rft.aulast=Tuthill&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=186&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.issn=0165232X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coldregions.2008.09.004 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0165232X LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th river ice workshop N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Clark Fork; dams; discharge; erosion; fluvial environment; heavy metals; hydrodynamics; hydrology; ice; ice jams; mines; Missoula County Montana; mitigation; models; Montana; pollution; remediation; river ice; scour; sediments; stream sediments; Superfund sites; transport; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2008.09.004 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Classification systems for earthen levees; a worldwide review AN - 50246940; 2009-081841 AB - Most nations of the world rely on levees in complex flood-control systems to protect hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of homes and businesses, and the lives of uncounted millions of people. With continuing urban growth and economic development, flood-control systems have been expanded and modified repeatedly to protect changing assets. The safety and reliability of a flood-control system depends on the condition of each individually built component. Yet there is no shared or standard system in the United States, and certainly not worldwide, for defining levee-management reaches, assessing levee condition, or predicting performance. A unified system of levee classification should be based on best current practices. This report summarizes levee classification systems in use in the United States, in the European Union, and in Japan. A review of these systems revealed three approaches to levee classification. Approach 1 defines levee-management segments based on geographic location. This type of classification system allows easy identification of each entity of the system under discussion, but provides minimal additional information. Approach 2 defines segments or reaches based on some aspect of condition or materials. This type of classification system identifies the geographic location for each reach and also provides useful information about fixed properties, which either do not change or change slowly relative to a human timescale. In Approach 3, segments are defined dynamically for a particular time frame by some parameter of vulnerability that incorporates risk. The geographic identifier of a reach remains constant while its condition-related or risk classification changes as physical conditions change with time. A dynamic classification system is a powerful levee management tool, with space and time integrated into a predictive system. JF - ERDC/GSL Special Report AU - Wakeley, Lillian D AU - Dunbar, Joseph B Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 23 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS KW - United States KW - civil engineering KW - risk management KW - geologic hazards KW - regional planning KW - Europe KW - preventive measures KW - levees KW - controls KW - earthworks KW - classification KW - floods KW - risk assessment KW - flood control KW - land use KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50246940?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=Wakeley%2C+Lillian+D%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B&rft.aulast=Wakeley&rft.aufirst=Lillian&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Classification+systems+for+earthen+levees%3B+a+worldwide+review&rft.title=Classification+systems+for+earthen+levees%3B+a+worldwide+review&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 - 17 N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendix N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06659 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - civil engineering; classification; controls; earthworks; Europe; flood control; floods; geologic hazards; land use; levees; preventive measures; regional planning; risk assessment; risk management; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Beach erosion and geomorphology; assessing correlations between beach and nearshore morphodynamics AN - 50229076; 2009-088069 AB - Accurate prediction of beach response to storms requires synthesizing complex relationships between nearshore hydrodynamics, underlying geology, nearshore bathymetry, beach topography, and sediment characteristics. Previous research on the Outer Banks of North Carolina has correlated the presence of underlying paleo-channels, nearshore heterogeneous sediment, and shore-oblique bars with shoreline erosional hotspots. Current research also suggests that undulations in the shape of the shoreline (megacusps and embayments on the scale of 1000m) may be related to the nearshore shore-oblique bars and have been shown to persist throughout storm events. Despite the documented relationships between these features, the morphodynamic link between the persistent nearshore bathymetry, shoreline morphology, and long-term erosion is unknown. This study presents detailed measurements of beach topography and grain size on two embayments and a megacusp during an extra-tropical storm along the Kitty Hawk, NC erosional hotspot, and aims to quantify spatial variations in beach response to storm events. Analyses of topographic changes between a summer beach profile and a winter nor'Easter profile show erosion of the foreshore and accretion on the upper beach. Erosion of the foreshore is consistent with offshore movement of the summer berm, whereas the accretion at the dune toe may be due to dune slumping during the storm or beach scraping. A prominent scarp was observed in the post-storm data where the flat summer backshore was previously located. Initial results indicate little difference between the topographic response of the megacusp compared to the embayments during the storm event. Preliminary analyses of post-storm beach sediment suggest that spatial variations in grain size exist along the beach with sediment more poorly sorted in the embayments versus the megacusps. Temporal variations (pre- and post-storm) in grain size from the embayments and megacusp will be investigated for statistically significant differences. Alongshore variations in energy dissipation will also be quantified from Bar and Swash Imaging Radar (BASIR), and used in conjunction with beach topography and grain size data to create a conceptual model of beach response to storms along this erosional hotspot. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Theuerkauf, Ethan J AU - Brodie, Kate L AU - Wadman, Heidi M AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 42 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 41 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - sand KW - shore features KW - Kitty Hawk North Carolina KW - erosion KW - clastic sediments KW - barrier beaches KW - landform evolution KW - grain size KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - effects KW - beach cusps KW - nearshore environment KW - spatial variations KW - topography KW - Outer Banks KW - North Carolina KW - sediments KW - coastal environment KW - beach profiles KW - storms KW - geomorphology KW - littoral erosion KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50229076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Beach+erosion+and+geomorphology%3B+assessing+correlations+between+beach+and+nearshore+morphodynamics&rft.au=Theuerkauf%2C+Ethan+J%3BBrodie%2C+Kate+L%3BWadman%2C+Heidi+M%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Theuerkauf&rft.aufirst=Ethan&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=42&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 58th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - barrier beaches; beach cusps; beach profiles; clastic sediments; coastal environment; Dare County North Carolina; effects; erosion; geomorphology; grain size; Kitty Hawk North Carolina; landform evolution; littoral erosion; nearshore environment; North Carolina; Outer Banks; sand; sediments; shore features; spatial variations; storms; topography; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Research on the heat preservation and crack-prevention measures for RCC gravity dam in severly cold and dry area AN - 21250557; 11768273 AB - The reason for the temperature crack of the RCC gravity dam sited in a high, cold area with a cold, hot, windy and dry climate is analyzed in this study. Combined with practical engineering, a finite element simulation analysis of surface temperature and temperature stress of the RCC dam with strengthening surface heat preservation is made. The results show that the surface thermal isolation can be considered as one of the best methods of concrete cracks prevention. According to on-site construction condition, the poured dam body is plastered with 5 centimeter-thick XPS boards and backfilled with soil on the surface to achieve comprehensive surface thermal isolation. JF - Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources AU - Niu, Wan-Ji AU - Wang, Jian-Ping AU - Luo, Qing-Ping AU - Zhang, Kang AD - Xinjiang Survey and Design Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower, Urumqi 830000, China Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - Feb 2009 SP - 44 EP - 46 PB - China Publication Foreign Trading Corporation, PO Box 782 Beijing 100011 VL - 29 IS - 1 SN - 1006-7647, 1006-7647 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Damsites KW - Temperature effects KW - Climates KW - Climate KW - Temperature KW - Water resources KW - Isolation KW - Civil Engineering KW - Heat KW - Dams KW - Cracks KW - Preservation KW - Q2 09267:Gravity and geodesy KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21250557?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Science+and+Technology+of+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=Research+on+the+heat+preservation+and+crack-prevention+measures+for+RCC+gravity+dam+in+severly+cold+and+dry+area&rft.au=Niu%2C+Wan-Ji%3BWang%2C+Jian-Ping%3BLuo%2C+Qing-Ping%3BZhang%2C+Kang&rft.aulast=Niu&rft.aufirst=Wan-Ji&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=44&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Science+and+Technology+of+Water+Resources&rft.issn=10067647&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - Chinese DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Climate; Water resources; Cracks; Damsites; Civil Engineering; Dams; Heat; Climates; Temperature; Preservation; Isolation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Predicting debris yield from burned watersheds: Comparison of statistical and Artificial Neural Network models AN - 20377915; 9049805 AB - Alluvial fans in southern California are continuously being developed for residential, industrial, commercial, and agricultural purposes. Development and alteration of alluvial fans often require consideration of mud and debris flows from burned mountain watersheds. Accurate prediction of sediment (hyper-concentrated sediment or debris) yield is essential for the design, operation, and maintenance of debris basins to safeguard properly the general population. This paper presents results based on a statistical model and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) models. The models predict sediment yield caused by storms following wildfire events in burned mountainous watersheds. Both sediment yield prediction models have been developed for use in relatively small watersheds (50-800 ha) in the greater Los Angeles area. The statistical model was developed using multiple regression analysis on sediment yield data collected from 1938 to 1983. Following the multiple regression analysis, a method for multi-sequence sediment yield prediction under burned watershed conditions was developed. The statistical model was then calibrated based on 17 years of sediment yield, fire, and precipitation data collected between 1984 and 2000. The present study also evaluated ANN models created to predict the sediment yields. The training of the ANN models utilized single storm event data generated for the 17-year period between 1984 and 2000 as the training input data. Training patterns and neural network architectures were varied to further study the ANN performance. Results from these models were compared with the available field data obtained from several debris basins within Los Angeles County. Both predictive models were then applied for hind-casting the sediment prediction of several post 2000 events. Both the statistical and ANN models yield remarkably consistent results when compared with the measured field data. The results show that these models are very useful tools for predicting sediment yield sequences. The results can be used for scheduling cleanout operation of debris basins. It can be of great help in the planning of emergency response for burned areas to minimize the damage to properties and lives. JF - Journal of the American Water Resources Association AU - Pak, J H AU - Kou, Z AU - Kwon, HJ AU - Lee, J-J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 Second Street, Davis, California 95616-4687, USA, hyukjae68@hotmail.com Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - Feb 2009 SP - 210 EP - 223 VL - 45 IS - 1 SN - 1093-474X, 1093-474X KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - USA, California, Los Angeles Cty. KW - Precipitation data KW - Basins KW - Architecture KW - Water resources KW - Watersheds KW - Storms KW - Mountains KW - Population genetics KW - mud KW - Yield predictions KW - Sediment yield KW - USA, California, Los Angeles KW - Neural networks KW - Model Studies KW - Emergency preparedness KW - Statistical Models KW - Prediction KW - wildfire KW - Statistical analysis KW - Debris flow KW - Yield KW - Neural Networks KW - Sediment Yield KW - Regression analysis KW - Alluvial fans KW - neural networks KW - Artificial intelligence KW - Sediment pollution KW - Fires KW - Mathematical models KW - Training KW - Statistical models KW - Debris Basins KW - Maintenance KW - prediction models KW - alluvial fans KW - Emergencies KW - ENA 06:Food & Drugs KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18) KW - Q5 08501:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20377915?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+the+American+Water+Resources+Association&rft.atitle=Predicting+debris+yield+from+burned+watersheds%3A+Comparison+of+statistical+and+Artificial+Neural+Network+models&rft.au=Pak%2C+J+H%3BKou%2C+Z%3BKwon%2C+HJ%3BLee%2C+J-J&rft.aulast=Pak&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=210&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Water+Resources+Association&rft.issn=1093474X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1752-1688.2008.00272.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Prediction; Debris flow; Population genetics; Yield predictions; Statistical models; Water resources; Emergencies; Alluvial fans; Watersheds; Fires; Precipitation data; Neural networks; Sediment yield; Regression analysis; Statistical analysis; Architecture; Storms; wildfire; Sediment pollution; Artificial intelligence; Mathematical models; Training; Basins; Maintenance; Mountains; mud; prediction models; alluvial fans; Emergency preparedness; neural networks; Yield; Neural Networks; Sediment Yield; Statistical Models; Debris Basins; Model Studies; USA, California, Los Angeles Cty.; USA, California, Los Angeles DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00272.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydraulic analyses of seven miles of the Santa Fe River in support of river restoration projects AN - 1328504652; 2013-033282 JF - Open File Report (Socorro, N.M.) AU - Shoaff, Lisa A Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 20 PB - New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM SN - 0731-5066, 0731-5066 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - floodplains KW - surface water KW - statistical analysis KW - rivers and streams KW - New Mexico KW - models KW - Santa Fe River KW - geographic information systems KW - streamflow KW - fluvial features KW - drainage basins KW - probability KW - information systems KW - discharge KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328504652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.atitle=Hydraulic+analyses+of+seven+miles+of+the+Santa+Fe+River+in+support+of+river+restoration+projects&rft.au=Shoaff%2C+Lisa+A&rft.aulast=Shoaff&rft.aufirst=Lisa&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=20&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.issn=07315066&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=513 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geology and hydrology of the Espanola Basin; 7th annual Espanola Basin workshop N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - NM N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Oct. 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - discharge; drainage basins; floodplains; fluvial features; geographic information systems; hydrology; information systems; models; New Mexico; probability; rivers and streams; Santa Fe River; statistical analysis; streamflow; surface water; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrologic analyses of the Santa Fe River watershed in support of river restoration projects AN - 1328503597; 2013-033270 JF - Open File Report (Socorro, N.M.) AU - Gant, Susan Y1 - 2009/02// PY - 2009 DA - February 2009 SP - 8 PB - New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, NM SN - 0731-5066, 0731-5066 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - reservoirs KW - drainage KW - surface water KW - statistical analysis KW - watersheds KW - atmospheric precipitation KW - New Mexico KW - models KW - Santa Fe River basin KW - streamflow KW - hydrographs KW - runoff KW - drainage basins KW - probability KW - discharge KW - land use KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328503597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.atitle=Hydrologic+analyses+of+the+Santa+Fe+River+watershed+in+support+of+river+restoration+projects&rft.au=Gant%2C+Susan&rft.aulast=Gant&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2009-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Open+File+Report+%28Socorro%2C+N.M.%29&rft.issn=07315066&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=513 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geology and hydrology of the Espanola Basin; 7th annual Espanola Basin workshop N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - NM N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Oct. 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - atmospheric precipitation; discharge; drainage; drainage basins; hydrographs; hydrology; land use; models; New Mexico; probability; reservoirs; runoff; Santa Fe River basin; statistical analysis; streamflow; surface water; United States; watersheds ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825204; 13710-090027_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825201; 13710-090027_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825141; 13710-090027_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825134; 13710-090027_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825088; 13710-090027_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825047; 13710-090027_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825036; 13710-090027_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825030; 13710-090027_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756825011; 13710-090027_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756825011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756824792; 13710-090027_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756824792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 756824777; 13710-090027_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/756824777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT G, FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY(IH) 45 TO US 59, HARRIS AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16369212; 13710 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 13.7-mile segment of fully controlled access highway bypassing the Houston Metropolitan Area in Harris and Montgomery counties, Texas is proposed. Transportation improvements are needed in the Segment G study area due to the presence of inadequate connections between suburban communities and major radial roadways, the lack of capacity to meet current and future transportation demands, the high accident rate within the Corridor, and the limitations placed on economic and population by inadequate transportation infrastructure. The proposed highway segment would be located in the northeastern quadrant of the planned 170-mile-long, third loop of SH 99 (Grand Parkway) around the City of Houston; the highway segment would be known as Segment G. The project Corridor at hand would extend from Interstate 45 (I-45) to the west, US 59 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and just beyond the proposed Grand Parkway segment to the north. The recommended alignment for the four-lane facility within the Segment G Corridor would provide for a combination of alignments. The conceptual design for this proposal consists of a four-lane, at-grade controlled access freeway, with frontage roads to provide local access, within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph), though the posted speed limit would be 65 mph. In addition to the preferred Alternative (Alternative D), three Alternative alignments and a No Action Alternative were considered in detail in the draft EIS. The cost of the preferred alternative identified in this final EIS is estimated at Alternative is estimated at $476.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Segment G would link the suburban communities and major roadways effectively and efficiently, enhance mobility and transportation safety, and respond to the demands of economic growth in the Houston region. The full Grand Parkway facility would provide access to radial highways, including US 290/I-45, I-10, State Highway 249, and US 59, and would serve as a third loop around the Houston Metropolitan Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 748.4 acres would displace 65 existing residential properties, 45 planned residential properties, and one business. In addition, the facility would displace 129.9 acres of bottomland hardwoods, 31.7 acres of aquatic buffers, 27.3 acres of isolated aquatic habitat sites, 94 acres of floodways, 102.6 acres of floodplain, and 132.9 acres of prime farmland. The highway would traverse 518 acres of land under which there is a high probability of archaeological resource sites. The highway would also cross one oil/gas well and 16 public and one private water well. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 138 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), North American Free Trade Agreement, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0133D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 090027, Volume I--349 pages and maps, Volume II--321 pages, Volume III--287 pages and maps, Volume IV--251 pages, January 26, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-03-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - North American Free Trade Agreement, Compliance KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/16369212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+G%2C+FROM+INTERSTATE+HIGHWAY%28IH%29+45+TO+US+59%2C+HARRIS+AND+MONTGOMERY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 26, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 14 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125627; 13707-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 13 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125624; 13707-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 12 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125622; 13707-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 11 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125619; 13707-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 10 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125617; 13707-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 9 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125613; 13707-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 8 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125609; 13707-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 18 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125425; 13707-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 17 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125421; 13707-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 6 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125411; 13707-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 5 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125408; 13707-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 3 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125401; 13707-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 2 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125396; 13707-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 1 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125392; 13707-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 16 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125258; 13707-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). [Part 15 of 18] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 873125253; 13707-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2001). AN - 16386935; 13707 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) Corridor between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri is proposed. The study Corridor is approximately 10 miles wide and 200 miles long. I-70 is a major east-west route, accommodating a significant volume of daily truck, commuter, and through traffic. The facility is a multi-lane, divided and fully access-controlled interstate highway. In the Kansas City area, the logical terminus would be the I-470 interchange (Exit 15). The logical eastern termini would be a system connection to the existing or proposed highway system including, possibly, I-64 (currently US 40 and US 61), Route 370, or I-70 near Lake St. Louis where the existing four- to six-lane transition occurs. Seven Alternative strategies, including a No-Build Alternative (Strategy 1) and a transportation system and demand management strategy (Strategy 2), were considered in the first tier EIS process, which concluded with the publication of a final EIS in October 2001. Three Alternative build strategies are under close consideration. The preferred Alternative (Strategy 3) would involve widening of existing I-70 to three to five lanes in each direction lanes and reconstructing the existing roadway to enhance safety and performance, particularly with respect to improved access management at interchanges. The facility would be relocated in the vicinity of Columbia and in the Warrenton/Wright City/Wentzville area. In rural areas the facility would be widened to the north or south. Special study areas would be established in Overton Bottoms and Mineola Hill. The right-of-way would be expanded to at least 400 feet and to a maximum of 500 feet. The facility would provide six lanes in urban areas and eight to 10 lanes in urban areas. Continuous frontage roads would be provided on both sides. Intersections would be provided at US 65, US 63, US 54, Route H/F at Oak Grove, Route 13 at Higginsville, Route 5 at Boonville, and Route 47 at Warrenton. The currently recommended Alternative, forwarded in this draft supplement to the final EIS would implement a truck-only lane strategy instead of simply widening existing I-70. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase roadway system capacity in accordance with the projected travel demands to improve general operating conditions within the I-70 Corridor; reduce the number and severity of traffic-related accidents occurring within the Corridor; upgrade the general design of the roadway to improve efficiency; improve the movement of freight along this important commercial roadway; and facilitate movement of motorists to recreational resources along the Corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: In rural areas, the expanded highway would likely increase noise levels significantly and relocation options would introduce noise into currently undisturbed areas; noise levels would exceed federal standards and hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Rights-of-way development would also displace farmland, wetlands, floodplain, and stream channels and the associate fish and terrestrial wildlife habitat, possibly including habitat for federally protected species. Several existing parklands and other public lands, including wildlife refuges and recreation areas, would be affected by rights-of-way acquisition, and businesses and residences would be displaced, sometimes to such an extent as to significantly affect community cohesion. Cultural resources sites would be disturbed and, in some case, displaced. Construction workers would encounter numerous 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 1 analysis, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for Tier 2 on a section of I-70 from east of Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exit 133) analysis, see 05-0411D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0144F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090024, 78 pages and maps, January 23, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-01-DS KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16386935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 23, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of standard and reaction cell inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry in the determination of chromium and selenium species by HPLC-ICP-MS AN - 1777138401; 11353301 AB - Elemental speciation is becoming a common analytical procedure for geochemical investigations. The various redox species of environmentally relevant metals can have vastly different biogeochemical properties, including sorption, solubility, bioavailability, and toxicity. The use of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to elemental specific detectors, such as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), has become one of the most important speciation methods employed. This is due to the separation versatility of HPLC and the sensitive and selective detection capabilities of ICP-MS. The current study compares standard mode ICP-MS to recently developed reaction cell (RC) ICP-MS, which has the ability to remove or reduce many common polyatomic interferences that can limit the ability of ICP-MS to quantitate certain analytes in complex matrices. Determination of chromium and selenium redox species is achieved using ion-exchange chromatography with elemental detection by standard and RC-ICP-MS, using various chromium and selenium isotopes. In this study, method performance and detection limits for the various permutations of the method (isotope monitored or ICP-MS detection mode) were found to be comparable and generally less than 1 kg L super(-1). The method was tested on synthetic laboratory samples, surface water, groundwater, and municipal tap water matrices. JF - Analytica Chimica Acta AU - Bednar, A J AU - Kirgan, R A AU - Jones, W T AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, United States Y1 - 2009/01/19/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 19 SP - 27 EP - 34 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 632 IS - 1 SN - 0003-2670, 0003-2670 KW - Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts (SO); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN) KW - Chromium KW - Selenium KW - Speciation KW - Reaction cell KW - Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry KW - Inductively coupled plasma KW - Matrices KW - Mass spectrometry KW - Standards KW - Mathematical analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777138401?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%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Analytica+Chimica+Acta&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+standard+and+reaction+cell+inductively+coupled+plasma+mass+spectrometry+in+the+determination+of+chromium+and+selenium+species+by+HPLC-ICP-MS&rft.au=Bednar%2C+A+J%3BKirgan%2C+R+A%3BJones%2C+W+T&rft.aulast=Bednar&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2009-01-19&rft.volume=632&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=27&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Analytica+Chimica+Acta&rft.issn=00032670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.aca.2008.10.050 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2008.10.050 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106), HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106), HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 756825196; 13698-090015_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around west side of the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The seven- to 10-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) South of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. The facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new Alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mark Thatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of November 2004. An August 2005 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed an additional build alternative. All six build alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The selected alternative Alignment would extend 7.5 miles, which was the alternative added in the draft supplement, has been forwarded as the selected alternative in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the build alternative considered, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new power line and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative considered, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public transportation use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. The highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 05-0398D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0124F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090015, 277 pages, January 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 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/756825196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106), HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106), HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 756824755; 13698-090015_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around west side of the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The seven- to 10-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) South of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. The facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new Alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mark Thatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of November 2004. An August 2005 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed an additional build alternative. All six build alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The selected alternative Alignment would extend 7.5 miles, which was the alternative added in the draft supplement, has been forwarded as the selected alternative in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the build alternative considered, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new power line and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative considered, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public transportation use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. The highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 05-0398D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0124F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090015, 277 pages, January 15, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 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/756824755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106), HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 16386892; 13698 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around west side of the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The seven- to 10-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) South of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. The facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new Alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mark Thatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of November 2004. An August 2005 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed an additional build alternative. All six build alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The selected alternative Alignment would extend 7.5 miles, which was the alternative added in the draft supplement, has been forwarded as the selected alternative in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the build alternative considered, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new power line and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative considered, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public transportation use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. The highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 05-0398D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 06-0124F, Volume 30, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 090015, 277 pages, January 15, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 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/16386892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%29%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 15, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 26/89/189/191 SOUTH OF JACKSON, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16375287; 13691 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 7.2-mile stretch of US 26/89/189/191 South of Jackson in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The project would extend from between mile posts 148.6 at the north end and 141.4 at the South end. The Snake River parallels the right-of-way through much of the southern portion of the study corridor. This section of highway constitutes a critical link within the region used by commuters from Pinedale and Bondurant and Alpine to access jobs and consumer outlets in Jackson. The highway is also heavily used by commercial vehicles as well as winter and summer tourist travelers. Varying widths of roadway along the corridor currently result in bottlenecks, exacerbating congestion and increasing risk of accidents. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The five-lane rural build alternative would provide for four 12-foot through lanes with one continuous 12-foot left-turn lane; the roadway would be flanked by eight-foot shoulders. The combination alternative would provide for a three-lane rural cross-section from MP 141.4 to MP 142.0 and a four-lane undivided cross-section from MP 142.0 to MP 142.5. The longest segment of this alternative, from MP 142.5 to MP 148.6 would consist of a five-lane rural highway. Both alternatives would require the replacement of a bridge crossing the Snake River floodplain. Both alternatives would also include a design element for construction of a separate pedestrian and bicycle pathway. Two pathway operations are considered. Under the first option, the pathway would parallel the highway on the west side. Under the second option, the pathway would follow the same Alignment from the northern study corridor terminus to Henry's Road South of Game Creek, where it would continue along Henry's Road to the point at which the road intersects with the highway near Horse Creek, at which point it would again share the same Alignment as that of the first option. The typical pathway for each of the options would be 10 feet wide, but the pathway could be narrowed to eight feet in certain locations to minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Widening the highway and maintaining a similar roadway width throughout the corridor would enhance system continuity, allowing decreased travel time and increasing safety. Anticipated residential and commercial growth in the Jackson area would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 15.8 to 17.3 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 1.9 acres of farmland and, under the five-lane rural alternative, would affect two Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust tracts. Impervious surface would be increased from 31.4 acres to either 68.8 acres or 71.4 acres. Vegetation losses would include 59.3 to 63.2 acres of Mountain Big Sage Brush, 41.7 acres of riparian forest, and 1.6 acres of Douglas fir. The Game Creek archaeological site would be impacted. Either alternative would impact 13 wetlands, displacing 0.94 acres permanently. Bride piers could be placed within the 100-year floodplain and channel of the Snake River. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090008, 387 pages, CD-ROM, January 14, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WY-EIS-EIS-08-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 14, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Fatigue Evaluation Criteria for Aged Asphalt Concrete Surfaces T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41803441; 5038157 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Freeman, Reed AU - Bell, Haley AU - Brown, Ray AU - Mejias, Mariely Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Asphalt KW - Concrete KW - Fatigue KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41803441?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Fatigue+Evaluation+Criteria+for+Aged+Asphalt+Concrete+Surfaces&rft.au=Freeman%2C+Reed%3BBell%2C+Haley%3BBrown%2C+Ray%3BMejias%2C+Mariely&rft.aulast=Freeman&rft.aufirst=Reed&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Development of a New Design Methodology for Structural Airfield Mats T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41803158; 5038596 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Gonzalez, Carlos AU - Rushing, Timothy Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41803158?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Development+of+a+New+Design+Methodology+for+Structural+Airfield+Mats&rft.au=Gonzalez%2C+Carlos%3BRushing%2C+Timothy&rft.aulast=Gonzalez&rft.aufirst=Carlos&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Full-Scale Evaluation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Aggregate Roads T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41797839; 5038039 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Tingle, Jeb AU - Jersey, Sarah Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41797839?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Full-Scale+Evaluation+of+Geosynthetic-Reinforced+Aggregate+Roads&rft.au=Tingle%2C+Jeb%3BJersey%2C+Sarah&rft.aulast=Tingle&rft.aufirst=Jeb&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Coordination of Flood Risk Management T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41787134; 5038452 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Hecker, Edward Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Floods KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41787134?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Coordination+of+Flood+Risk+Management&rft.au=Hecker%2C+Edward&rft.aulast=Hecker&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Data Programs T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41771192; 5036481 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Pankow, Virginia AU - McDonald, Douglas Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - USA KW - Data processing KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41771192?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineer+Data+Programs&rft.au=Pankow%2C+Virginia%3BMcDonald%2C+Douglas&rft.aulast=Pankow&rft.aufirst=Virginia&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Stiffness-Based Assessment of Pavement Foundation Materials Using Portable Tools T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41761576; 5038057 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Jersey, Sarah AU - Edwards, Lulu Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Foundations KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41761576?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Stiffness-Based+Assessment+of+Pavement+Foundation+Materials+Using+Portable+Tools&rft.au=Jersey%2C+Sarah%3BEdwards%2C+Lulu&rft.aulast=Jersey&rft.aufirst=Sarah&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Field and Laboratory Investigation of Foamed Asphalt (Warm-Mix Asphalt) with High Recycled Asphalt Pavement Content for Sustainment and Rehabilitation of Asphalt Pavement T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41760089; 5038234 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Hodo, Wayne Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Asphalt KW - Rehabilitation KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41760089?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Field+and+Laboratory+Investigation+of+Foamed+Asphalt+%28Warm-Mix+Asphalt%29+with+High+Recycled+Asphalt+Pavement+Content+for+Sustainment+and+Rehabilitation+of+Asphalt+Pavement&rft.au=Hodo%2C+Wayne&rft.aulast=Hodo&rft.aufirst=Wayne&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Military Applications T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41753076; 5039067 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Tingle, Jeb Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Military KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41753076?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Military+Applications&rft.au=Tingle%2C+Jeb&rft.aulast=Tingle&rft.aufirst=Jeb&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Full-Scale Traffic Tests and Laboratory Testing Protocol for Determining Rapid-Setting Material Suitability for Expedient Pavement Repairs T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41744192; 5039315 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Priddy, Lucy AU - Jersey, Sarah AU - Freeman, Reed Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Laboratory testing KW - Traffic KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41744192?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Full-Scale+Traffic+Tests+and+Laboratory+Testing+Protocol+for+Determining+Rapid-Setting+Material+Suitability+for+Expedient+Pavement+Repairs&rft.au=Priddy%2C+Lucy%3BJersey%2C+Sarah%3BFreeman%2C+Reed&rft.aulast=Priddy&rft.aufirst=Lucy&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Infrastructure Assessment: Decisions During Crisis T2 - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AN - 41735708; 5038940 JF - 88th Annual Meeting of the Transpotations Research Board AU - Alexander, Don AU - Gilbert, Robert Y1 - 2009/01/11/ PY - 2009 DA - 2009 Jan 11 KW - Infrastructure KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41735708?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.atitle=Infrastructure+Assessment%3A+Decisions+During+Crisis&rft.au=Alexander%2C+Don%3BGilbert%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Alexander&rft.aufirst=Don&rft.date=2009-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=88th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Transpotations+Research+Board&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.trb.org/meeting/2009/PDFs/TRBAM09.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756825263; 13688-090005_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 756825162; 13688-090005_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED CLIFF MINE PROJECT, NEAR MACK IN MESA AND GARFIELD COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 36350283; 13688 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the development of off-lease surface facilities related to the operation of the Red Cliff Coal Mine (RCM) Project in Mesa and Garfield counties, Colorado is proposed. The project area lies 11 miles north of the towns of Mack and Loma and 1.5 miles east of State Highway 139. The applicant, CAM Colorado, Inc., currently mines 280,000 tons of coal annually from the underground McClane Canyon Mine (MCM), located three miles South of the proposed RCM. The MCM provides coal for Xcel Energy's Cameo Power Plant east of Grand Junction. CAM plans to continue to deliver coal to the power plant by truck as long as the plant continues operation and CAM has the supply contract; average delivery rate would be 230 trucks of coal per week. If the Cameo Power Plant is shut down while economically recoverable coal remains underground at MCM, CAM may truck coal from MCM to the RCM loadout. When the MCM is shut down, trucks would originate from the RCM. With increased production and a railroad connection, coal produced from the RCM could be transported to power plants elsewhere in the United States. Once washed, the coal provides a high-quality, low-sulfur fuel with a heating value of 11,000 to 11,500 British thermal units. Initially, CAM proposed to use the infrastructure to mine, using underground techniques, a federal coal lease-by-application (LBA) encompassing 11,660 acres adjacent to CAM's existing leases; this world encompass federal coal leases C0125515, C0125516, and C0125439. Through a tract delineation process BLM would modify the LBA to include 23,000 acres. BLM determined that, if this coal were to be leases, it would have to be via competitive bidding. In addition, Grand Valley Power (GVP) has submitted a separate application to construct transmission and utility systems and facilities on federal lands to BLM to allow GVP to construct and operate a 49-kV electric transmission line to provide power for Red Cliff Mine operations. Surface facilities to be developed include roads, a water pipeline, the GVP electric transmission line, coal conveyors and a stockpile, waste disposal areas. a coal preparation plant, the mine portal, a railroad spur connecting to the Union Pacific Railroad line near Mac, and ancillary administrative and operations facilities. The rail spur would traverse 9.5 miles of BLM-administered land and five miles of private land, while the transmission line would traverse seven miles of BLM-administered and seven miles of private land. Underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining would be conducted round-the-clock, 365 days per year. Mine construction would require two years at an estimated cost of $160 million in 2006 dollars. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would result in BLM refusing to grant the rights-of-way to access, power, and operate the mine and deliver coal to the market, as well as alternative means of transporting coal, coal transportation routes, means and routes for delivering electricity to the mine, sources and routes for delivering water to the mine, means and locations for disposing of waste rock, methods of venting methane gas from the mine, and future coal lease areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCM project would remove 8.0 million tons of coal annually from the LBA area over its 30-year mine life; the production rate at the mine would be regulated to meet market demand cost-effectively and efficiently. Entry of the coal into the electrical power generation market would provide for a relatively cheap hydrocarbon fuel and reduce the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy. The mine would provide for continued and expanded employment rolls for local workers and otherwise boost local economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During development and operation of the mine livestock grazing would be eliminated from the affected rangeland. Wildlife forage and other aspects of wildlife habitat would be fragmented and wildlife cover would be reduced significantly; approximately one percent of livestock forage would be removed from the affected allotments. A portion of the North Fruita Special Resource Management Area would be affected by mining operations. Rural aesthetics and other recreational and cultural values would be degraded. Geological and soil structures in the mined area would be irretrievably damaged. Vegetation, including wetland and riparian species, would be temporarily lost. Water depletion in Mack Wash could degrade habitat for federally protected Colorado River fish species. Land subsidence could result due to mine void collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 090005, Draft EIS--481 pages and maps, Appendices (CD-ROM, January 9, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mines KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Management KW - Colorado KW - Grand Junction Resource Management Area KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RED+CLIFF+MINE+PROJECT%2C+NEAR+MACK+IN+MESA+AND+GARFIELD+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 9, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825947; 13683-090000_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825741; 13683-090000_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825209; 13683-090000_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825207; 13683-090000_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825186; 13683-090000_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825163; 13683-090000_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825116; 13683-090000_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 756825064; 13683-090000_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER TREATMENT AREAS ON COMPARTMENTS B AND C OF THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA, FLORIDA. AN - 36343835; 13683 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on compartments B and C of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach and Hendry counties, Florida are proposed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The six existing STAs included in the ECP which are operated pursuant to the requirements set out in the EFA, contain more than 40,000 acres of effective treatment area. Though it was assumed that best management practices incorporated into management of the STAs would decrease phosphorus levels by 20 percent, this has not turned out to be the case. Additional water quality treatment is necessary in the EAA to lower levels of phosphorus contained in releases from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee that discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (ECP) in order to meet water quality standards set out in the Everglades Forever Act (EFA). This would require discharge of fill and construction of levees to create compartments B and C, followed by creation of biological treatment cells designed to bind and remove phosphorus within each compartment. The Compartment B STA would contain approximately 6,700 acres of affected area and would be operated in close coordination with the STA 2 to add phosphorus reduction capacity of the latter STA, which discharges into Water Conservation Area 2A. The SFWMD would also that the Compartment B STA be used to receive flows that otherwise would be directed to STA 1W and STA 1E, assuming there were capacity in the existing canals. The Compartment C STA would contain 6,200 acres of effective treatment area and would be operated in close coordination with STAs 5 and 6 to add to the phosphorus reduction capacity of these two STAs, which discharge to STA 3A and the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area. Project features include the development of several treatment cells. In addition to SFWMD's proposed action, this final EIS considers three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Two of the action alternatives to the proposed alternative would utilize compartments B and C but with a different operating regime for Compartment B, while the third action alternative would include other lands for construction of a STA to assisting existing STA 1W and STA 1E. Key impact issues evaluated in detail in this EIS include those related to federally protected species, archaeological resources, water quality ad yield, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation, recreation, and socioeconomics. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Water quality in the Everglades, particularly in the EPA, would improve significantly as phosphorus levels dropped in discharges to the EPA from the STAs. With improved water quality, wetland and aquatic habitat supporting thousands of species, including plant, insect, reptile, and mammalian species, would be significantly enhanced. The project would help maintain the viability of the Everglades as a unique, world-class wetland habitat resource, helping to preserve its scientific, socioeconomic, ecological, and recreational values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: As proposed, the project would impact jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. covering approximately 7,591 acres in Compartment B and 5,918 acres in Compartment C, destroying or degrading the associated vegetation and wildlife and fish habitat. Archaeological sites would be affected by dredging, filling, levee construction, and stormwater flows. The recreational value of the Everglades wetlands to be affected would decline significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act and Public Law 104-127. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0356D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 090000, Final EIS (Sections 1 though 9)--388 pages, Appendices A through G--379 pages and maps, Appendices H through L--799 pages, Appendices M through P--487 pages, January 2, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Phosphates KW - Preserves KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Everglades Forever Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 104-127, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+OF+STORMWATER+TREATMENT+AREAS+ON+COMPARTMENTS+B+AND+C+OF+THE+EVERGLADES+AGRICULTURAL+AREA%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 2, 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effeciencies of remotely sensed data and sensitivity of grid spacing in sampling and mapping a soil erosion relevant cover factor by cokriging AN - 868008854; 2011-045144 JF - International Journal of Remote Sensing AU - Wang, Guangxing AU - Gertner, George AU - Anderson, Alan B Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 4457 EP - 4477 PB - Taylor & Francis, London VL - 30 IS - 17 SN - 0143-1161, 0143-1161 KW - soils KW - thematic mapper KW - cokriging KW - erosion KW - statistical analysis KW - data processing KW - mapping KW - geostatistics KW - vegetation KW - satellite methods KW - Landsat KW - sampling KW - soil erosion KW - image analysis KW - remote sensing KW - field studies KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868008854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Remote+Sensing&rft.atitle=Effeciencies+of+remotely+sensed+data+and+sensitivity+of+grid+spacing+in+sampling+and+mapping+a+soil+erosion+relevant+cover+factor+by+cokriging&rft.au=Wang%2C+Guangxing%3BGertner%2C+George%3BAnderson%2C+Alan+B&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Guangxing&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=4457&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Remote+Sensing&rft.issn=01431161&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F01431160802575679 L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01431161.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - cokriging; data processing; erosion; field studies; geostatistics; image analysis; Landsat; mapping; remote sensing; sampling; satellite methods; soil erosion; soils; statistical analysis; thematic mapper; vegetation DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431160802575679 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ornamental and Row Crop Susceptibility to Flumioxazin in Overhead Irrigation Water AN - 853484666; 14136537 AB - The effects of flumioxazin in irrigation water were evaluated on four row crop species (corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat) and three ornamental species (begonia, impatiens, and snapdragon). Plants were overhead irrigated one time with flumioxazin at concentrations of 0, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1,600, and 3,200 mu g ai/L in water equivalent to 1.27 cm. Ornamental plant tolerances on the basis of a 10% reduction in dry weight (effective concentration 10 [EC10]) were as follows: impatiens (40) < begonia (103) < snapdragon (7,024). The EC10 values of flumioxazin on the basis of dry weight values for row crop species were wheat (35) < corn experiment 1 (53) < cotton (106) < corn experiment 2 (181) < soybean (193). EC10 values for plant height were similar to values for plant dry weight for ornamental and crop species. Snapdragon was the only plant evaluated that was mature at the time of treatment; consequently, all other species were moderately to highly sensitive to irrigation water containing flumioxazin. These data show that flumioxazin can injure and kill immature ornamental and crop species within the potential maximum concentration of 400 mu g/L; however, the very short half-life of this herbicide in water with pH 7.0 to 9.0 (ca. 16 h to 17 min) could result in less injury than suggested in this study. JF - Weed Technology AU - Mudge, Christopher R AU - Haller, William T AD - *Former Graduate Research Assistant and Professor, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110610, Gainesville, FL 32611. Current address of first author: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Corresponding author's Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 89 EP - 93 PB - Weed Science Society of America VL - 23 IS - 1 SN - 0890-037X, 0890-037X KW - Water Resources Abstracts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853484666?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Weed+Technology&rft.atitle=Ornamental+and+Row+Crop+Susceptibility+to+Flumioxazin+in+Overhead+Irrigation+Water&rft.au=Mudge%2C+Christopher+R%3BHaller%2C+William+T&rft.aulast=Mudge&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=89&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Weed+Technology&rft.issn=0890037X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1614%2FWT-08-024.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-08-024.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756827225; 14271-090452_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 756827173; 14271-090452_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Infrastructure Assessment AN - 746004489; 12601867 AB - Engineers are being challenged to make critical decisions in response to crisis situations occurring around the globe on a seemingly daily basis. The nature of these crises varies widely and can include military missions as well as humanitarian operations in response to hurricanes, tsunamis, fires, and earthquakes. With thousands of lives hanging in the balance, timely and successful responses to these emergencies often depend on the optimal use of the existing horizontal infrastructure, such as roads, airfields, and railroads, in the affected area. Engineers must provide solutions quickly on the basis of limited data, particularly for unanticipated emergency situations. For military operations, options and alternatives are imperative to the success of a mission. This paper describes an analytical approach to the management of uncertainty because of limited data that provides a solution based on seasonal variability in material strengths, spatial variability in material strengths, and spatial variability in pavement layer thicknesses. An example scenario for an airfield is presented to illustrate techniques for analysis of the structural capacity of pavements of marginal quality and quantification of the uncertainty of the results. Show References JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Alexander, Don R AU - Gilbert, Robert B AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road (CEERD-GM-R), Vicksburg, MS 39180 Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 93 EP - 98 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2093 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Earthquakes KW - tsunamis KW - Transportation KW - Sulfur dioxide KW - Railroads KW - crises KW - Military KW - Seasonal variations KW - Fires KW - Hurricanes KW - Seismic activity KW - infrastructure KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/746004489?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%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Infrastructure+Assessment&rft.au=Alexander%2C+Don+R%3BGilbert%2C+Robert+B&rft.aulast=Alexander&rft.aufirst=Don&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=2093&rft.issue=&rft.spage=93&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2093-11 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - tsunamis; Earthquakes; Hurricanes; Fires; Sulfur dioxide; Transportation; Railroads; crises; Seismic activity; Military; Seasonal variations; infrastructure DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2093-11 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - VEHICLE IMPACTS ON VEGETATION COVER AT CAMP ATTERBURY, INDIANA, USA: PART 3. PREDICTING CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF A MILITARY TRAINING EVENT AN - 745975394; 12678335 AB - Vehicle and troop tracking systems are increasingly being used during military training events to improve the quality of the training by providing detailed information for real-time and post training analysis. The Deployable Force-on-Force Instrumented Range System (DFIRST) is an example of one of these systems currently being used by U.S. Army National Guard units. Information from these vehicle tracking systems can be used to improve Army installation environmental impact assessments and monitoring programs. DFIRST vehicle tracking systems were installed on over 80 military vehicles as part of a 12-day live training exercise at Camp Atterbury, Indiana. From the original DFIRST dataset one training day was selected for detailed analysis. Vehicle tracking systems monitored vehicle locations while actively participating in a training exercise. Vehicle locations were used to calculate vehicle dynamic properties (velocity and turning radius). Vehicle dynamic and static (weight, type) properties and were used to predict vegetation loss using models previously developed for use at Camp Atterbury. USEPA 1979 AP-42 dust model was used to estimate dust emissions. Average distance traveled per vehicle was 17.2 km/day with an average of 0.2 km/day off-road. The training event resulted in an estimated 2662.8 m super(2) of vegetation loss and 465.1 kg of PM 2.5 dust generated for the period of analysis. This study demonstrates the use of emerging vehicle tracking systems, fielded to support improved training, can be used to assess environmental impacts associated with training. JF - Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences AU - Anderson, AB AU - Ayers, P D AU - Howard, H R AU - Sullivan, P M AU - Horner, DA AU - Faust, M AU - Ochsner, W R AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research Development Center, Champaign, Illinois 61822 USA, alan.b.anderson@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 114 EP - 119 VL - 118 IS - 2 SN - 0073-6767, 0073-6767 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Cyclic AMP KW - Environmental impact KW - Vegetation KW - Dust KW - Physical training KW - Models KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/745975394?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%3Aecology&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+Indiana+Academy+of+Sciences&rft.atitle=VEHICLE+IMPACTS+ON+VEGETATION+COVER+AT+CAMP+ATTERBURY%2C+INDIANA%2C+USA%3A+PART+3.+PREDICTING+CUMULATIVE+IMPACT+OF+A+MILITARY+TRAINING+EVENT&rft.au=Anderson%2C+AB%3BAyers%2C+P+D%3BHoward%2C+H+R%3BSullivan%2C+P+M%3BHorner%2C+DA%3BFaust%2C+M%3BOchsner%2C+W+R&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=AB&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=118&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=114&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+Indiana+Academy+of+Sciences&rft.issn=00736767&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-31 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cyclic AMP; Environmental impact; Vegetation; Dust; Models; Physical training ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing reservoir operations risk under climate change AN - 742919898; 2010-056378 JF - Water Resources Research AU - Brekke, Levi D AU - Maurer, Edwin P AU - Anderson, Jamie D AU - Dettinger, Michael D AU - Townsley, Edwin S AU - Harrison, Alan AU - Pruitt, Tom Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 EP - Citation W04411 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 45 IS - 4 SN - 0043-1397, 0043-1397 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - programs KW - risk management KW - reservoirs KW - public policy KW - water management KW - decision-making KW - climate change KW - Central Valley KW - California KW - risk assessment KW - uncertainty KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742919898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Research&rft.atitle=Assessing+reservoir+operations+risk+under+climate+change&rft.au=Brekke%2C+Levi+D%3BMaurer%2C+Edwin+P%3BAnderson%2C+Jamie+D%3BDettinger%2C+Michael+D%3BTownsley%2C+Edwin+S%3BHarrison%2C+Alan%3BPruitt%2C+Tom&rft.aulast=Brekke&rft.aufirst=Levi&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2008WR006941 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 55 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - WRERAQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - California; Central Valley; climate change; decision-making; hydrology; programs; public policy; reservoirs; risk assessment; risk management; uncertainty; United States; water management DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006941 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Passive detection of gamma ray shadows from small-scale soil surface anomalies AN - 742911641; 2010-049718 AB - We exhibit theoretical and experimental evidence that some surface anomalies can be passively detected from their shadowing of low-level gamma rays emitted from natural soil. Surface objects on the order of decimeter size with high electron density cause variable attenuation in several bands of gamma ray energies, while some surface holes cause other detectable changes in the gamma background. Using a broadly collimated portable 7.6 x 7.6 cm cylindrical NaI (Tl) scintillation detector, we characterize the small-scale (on the order of meter scale or less) homogeneity of gamma rays at the soil surface in the context of detectability of objects and holes. We suggest that passive detection of anomalies below the surface may have impractically low count rates due to the greater collimation needed. JF - Journal of Geophysical Research AU - Furey, John AU - Morgan, Cliff AU - Fields, Morris Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 EP - Citation B08202 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 114 IS - B8 SN - 0148-0227, 0148-0227 KW - soils KW - theoretical studies KW - experimental studies KW - gamma-ray methods KW - gamma rays KW - applications KW - anomalies KW - instruments KW - measurement KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742911641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.atitle=Passive+detection+of+gamma+ray+shadows+from+small-scale+soil+surface+anomalies&rft.au=Furey%2C+John%3BMorgan%2C+Cliff%3BFields%2C+Morris&rft.aulast=Furey&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=B8&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.issn=01480227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2008JB006226 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/jgr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 31 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - anomalies; applications; experimental studies; gamma rays; gamma-ray methods; instruments; measurement; soils; theoretical studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JB006226 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Minimizing sleep disturbance from blast noise producing training activities for residents living near a military installation. AN - 742774319; pmid-19173404 AB - Field research was conducted during 2004 in the vicinity of a United States military installation to determine if awakening of residents due to blast noise from large military weapons might vary during the night. Analysis of the data indicates that awakening from blast noise is significantly less likely during the time period between midnight and 0200 h compared to time periods before midnight and approaching dawn. These findings suggest that postponing noisy evening training until after midnight could effectively reduce the negative impact of nighttime training on local residents and thus help to preserve nighttime training capabilities. JF - The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America AU - Nykaza, Edward T AU - Pater, Larry L AU - Melton, Robert H AU - Luz, George A AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois 61822-1078, USA. edward.t.nykaza@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 175 EP - 184 VL - 125 IS - 1 SN - 0001-4966, 0001-4966 KW - Index Medicus KW - National Library of Medicine KW - Humans KW - Models, Statistical KW - Environment KW - Sleep Disorders -- epidemiology KW - Military Personnel KW - Residence Characteristics KW - Sleep Disorders -- etiology KW - Noise -- adverse effects KW - Explosions UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742774319?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%3Acomdisdome&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Minimizing+sleep+disturbance+from+blast+noise+producing+training+activities+for+residents+living+near+a+military+installation.&rft.au=Nykaza%2C+Edward+T%3BPater%2C+Larry+L%3BMelton%2C+Robert+H%3BLuz%2C+George+A&rft.aulast=Nykaza&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=125&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=175&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00014966&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English (eng) DB - ComDisDome N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-13 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Tungsten effects on microbial community structure and activity in a soil. AN - 66816445; 19141799 AB - Tungsten, once deposited onto a soil as a result of private, industrial, and military activities, may persist as tungstate anion or, via polymerization, as a variety of poly-tungstate species, each with varying solubility and soil sorption characteristics. In this study, the impact of weathered tungsten on a soil microbial community was measured. Fatty acid analyses indicated that weathered tungsten at or =1300 mg W kg(-1) soil. These results indicate that tungsten in soil can alter both the structure and the function of an indigenous soil microbial community. JF - Journal of environmental quality AU - Ringelberg, D B AU - Reynolds, C M AU - Winfield, L E AU - Inouye, L S AU - Johnson, D R AU - Bednar, A J AD - US Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, USA. David.B.Ringelberg@usace.army.mil PY - 2009 SP - 103 EP - 110 VL - 38 IS - 1 SN - 0047-2425, 0047-2425 KW - Biomarkers KW - 0 KW - Fatty Acids KW - Soil Pollutants KW - Acetylene KW - OC7TV75O83 KW - Tungsten KW - V9306CXO6G KW - Index Medicus KW - Oxidation-Reduction KW - Acetylene -- metabolism KW - Nitrogen Fixation KW - Helianthus -- growth & development KW - Fatty Acids -- analysis KW - Tungsten -- pharmacology KW - Soil Microbiology KW - Azotobacter vinelandii -- drug effects KW - Soil Pollutants -- pharmacology KW - Biomass UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66816445?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.atitle=Tungsten+effects+on+microbial+community+structure+and+activity+in+a+soil.&rft.au=Ringelberg%2C+D+B%3BReynolds%2C+C+M%3BWinfield%2C+L+E%3BInouye%2C+L+S%3BJohnson%2C+D+R%3BBednar%2C+A+J&rft.aulast=Ringelberg&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.issn=00472425&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134%2Fjeq2008.0022 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-03-10 N1 - Date created - 2009-01-14 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0022 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reef-top sediment bodies; windward O'ahu, Hawaii AN - 50447306; 2009-040317 AB - Hawaiian fringing reefs display sand bodies on their surfaces that are potentially important components of littoral sediment budgets. This work provides a regional survey of modern reef-top sediment storage and investigated geologic controls on sediment storage potential. Sand bodies are formed when sediment accumulates in topographic depressions that are the result of meteoric water eroding the emerged carbonate reef platform during periods of lower sea level. The relief of some depressions may be modified by Holocene reef accretion. Depression morphology exerts a strong control on volume and internal distribution of sediment. In this study a total of 205 jet probe thickness measurements was collected from 54 major sand bodies on the fringing reef (0-20 m depth) adjacent to 22 km of Southeast O'ahu coastline (Kailua, Lanikai, and Waimanalo). Volumes were determined and synthesized with previous volume estimates of coastal subaerial and deeper submarine sediment bodies (20-200 m depth), giving the total sediment storage within the coastal system. Sand bodies range from 50 to 2,800 m from shore. Measured thickness varied from 0 to greater than 3.0 m with a mean of 0.95 m. For this study sand bodies were classified into three dominate morphologies: channel, field, and karst depression. The volume of sediment stored in channels was 58,253+ or -618X10 (super 3) m (super 3) , fields contained 171+ or -6X10 (super 3) m (super 3) , and karst depressions contained 1,332+ or -248X10 (super 3) m (super 3) . Correlation of sediment body distribution with reef and coastal plain morphology revealed potential geologic controls on sand body formation in this region. Meteoric runoff and reef slope are important controls on spatial distribution of sand bodies. JF - Pacific Science AU - Bochicchio, Christopher AU - Fletcher, Charles AU - Dyer, Matthew AU - Smith, Thomas Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - January 2009 SP - 61 EP - 82 PB - University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI VL - 63 IS - 1 SN - 0030-8870, 0030-8870 KW - United States KW - platform reefs KW - fringing reefs KW - reefs KW - karst KW - sand bodies KW - intertidal environment KW - shelf environment KW - sediments KW - sedimentary structures KW - meteoric water KW - Honolulu County Hawaii KW - sedimentation KW - paleochannels KW - Oahu KW - Hawaii KW - East Pacific Ocean Islands KW - planar bedding structures KW - marine environment KW - ocean waves KW - volume KW - Oceania KW - depressions KW - coastal environment KW - Polynesia KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50447306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Pacific+Science&rft.atitle=Reef-top+sediment+bodies%3B+windward+O%27ahu%2C+Hawaii&rft.au=Bochicchio%2C+Christopher%3BFletcher%2C+Charles%3BDyer%2C+Matthew%3BSmith%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Bochicchio&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Pacific+Science&rft.issn=00308870&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pacific_science/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 34 N1 - PubXState - HI N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - PASCAP N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - coastal environment; depressions; East Pacific Ocean Islands; fringing reefs; Hawaii; Honolulu County Hawaii; intertidal environment; karst; marine environment; meteoric water; Oahu; ocean waves; Oceania; paleochannels; planar bedding structures; platform reefs; Polynesia; reefs; sand bodies; sedimentary structures; sedimentation; sediments; shelf environment; United States; volume ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Finite element analyses of pavement materials at or near failure; a constant bulk modulus approach AN - 50243429; 2009-079589 JF - Proceedings - International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields AU - Gonzalez, C AU - Jersey, S A2 - Tutumluer, Erol A2 - Al-Qadi, Imad L. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 607 EP - 618 PB - [varies], [varies] VL - 8 KW - United States KW - clay KW - crushed stone KW - aggregate KW - earth pressure KW - strain KW - data processing KW - Vicksburg Group KW - Cenozoic KW - laboratory studies KW - finite element analysis KW - foundations KW - runways KW - digital simulation KW - sediments KW - construction materials KW - soil mechanics KW - experimental studies KW - elasticity KW - numerical models KW - clastic sediments KW - bearing capacity KW - loading KW - stress KW - Paleogene KW - middle Oligocene KW - Tertiary KW - airports KW - Oligocene KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50243429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.atitle=Finite+element+analyses+of+pavement+materials+at+or+near+failure%3B+a+constant+bulk+modulus+approach&rft.au=Gonzalez%2C+C%3BJersey%2C+S&rft.aulast=Gonzalez&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=&rft.spage=607&rft.isbn=9780415871990&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+-+International+Conference+on+the+Bearing+Capacity+of+Roads%2C+Railways+and+Airfields&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 8th international conference on The bearing capacity of roads, railways and airfields N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06657 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aggregate; airports; bearing capacity; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; clay; construction materials; crushed stone; data processing; digital simulation; earth pressure; elasticity; experimental studies; finite element analysis; foundations; laboratory studies; loading; middle Oligocene; numerical models; Oligocene; Paleogene; runways; sediments; soil mechanics; strain; stress; Tertiary; United States; Vicksburg Group ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Flood control challenges in Bernalillo County AN - 50127770; 2009-097393 JF - Decision-makers field conference 2009 AU - Kelly, John P AU - Blake, Fritz A2 - Price, L. Greer A2 - Bland, Douglas A2 - Johnson, Peggy S. A2 - Connell, Sean D. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 KW - United States KW - Rio Grande KW - hydrology KW - water quality KW - geologic hazards KW - arroyos KW - Bernalillo County New Mexico KW - floodplains KW - surface water KW - rivers and streams KW - pumping KW - stormwater KW - New Mexico KW - erosion features KW - water balance KW - ground water KW - levees KW - controls KW - Albuquerque New Mexico KW - fluvial features KW - floods KW - storms KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50127770?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=conference&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Kelly%2C+John+P%3BBlake%2C+Fritz&rft.aulast=Kelly&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781883905279&rft.btitle=Flood+control+challenges+in+Bernalillo+County&rft.title=Flood+control+challenges+in+Bernalillo+County&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Decision-makers field conference 2009 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - Availability - New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, United States N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geophysical investigations at Shishmaref, Alaska AN - 50065366; 2010-026967 JF - Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cold Regions Engineering AU - Azelton, Mary T AU - Epps, Lewis N AU - Astley, Beth N AU - Zufelt, Jon E AU - Bjella, Kevin A2 - Mooers, Howard D. A2 - Hinzmann, John, Jr. Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 8 EP - 15 PB - ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA VL - 14 SN - 0270-546X, 0270-546X KW - United States KW - electrical conductivity KW - permafrost KW - geophysical surveys KW - erosion KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - climate change KW - Sarichef Island KW - sediments KW - Arctic Ocean KW - soil erosion KW - soils KW - sand KW - barrier islands KW - shore features KW - clastic sediments KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - radar methods KW - depth KW - Shishmaref Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - surveys KW - Alaska KW - geomorphology KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50065366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.atitle=Geophysical+investigations+at+Shishmaref%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Azelton%2C+Mary+T%3BEpps%2C+Lewis+N%3BAstley%2C+Beth+N%3BZufelt%2C+Jon+E%3BBjella%2C+Kevin&rft.aulast=Azelton&rft.aufirst=Mary&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+the+International+Symposium+on+Cold+Regions+Engineering&rft.issn=0270546X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourteenth conference on Cold regions engineering N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 4 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Arctic Ocean; barrier islands; Chukchi Sea; clastic sediments; climate change; depth; electrical conductivity; electrical methods; erosion; geomorphology; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; ground-penetrating radar; permafrost; radar methods; sand; Sarichef Island; sediments; Shishmaref Alaska; shore features; soil erosion; soils; surveys; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Waipaoa sedimentary system fieldtrip AN - 50055842; 2010-032058 AB - The main purpose of this fieldtrip is to provide an overview of the nearshore and terrestrial portions of the Waipaoa Sedimentary System (Waipaoa SS). The trip commences at Kaiti Hill lookout immediately adjacent to Gisborne City, then travels north along the Waipaoa River mainstem, before diverging along the Mangatu River tributary, to the final stop at "the end of the road" at Tarndale Gully. JF - GNS Science Miscellaneous Series AU - Litchfield, N J AU - Bilderback, E AU - McNinch, J AU - Marden, M AU - Wolinsky, M Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 20 PB - GNS Science, Lower Hutt VL - 22 SN - 1177-2441, 1177-2441 KW - Australasia KW - source-to-sink concept KW - guidebook KW - sedimentation KW - nearshore sedimentation KW - field trips KW - Mangatu River KW - Gisborne New Zealand KW - fore-arc basins KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - North Island KW - Waipaoa River KW - sediments KW - basins KW - Tarndale Gully KW - New Zealand KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50055842?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=Litchfield%2C+N+J%3BBilderback%2C+E%3BMcNinch%2C+J%3BMarden%2C+M%3BWolinsky%2C+M&rft.aulast=Litchfield&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9780478196641&rft.btitle=Waipaoa+sedimentary+system+fieldtrip&rft.title=Waipaoa+sedimentary+system+fieldtrip&rft.issn=11772441&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS Science), Lower Hutt, New Zealand N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 41 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Field guide accompanies the Integration and synthesis of MARGINS sediment source-to-sink research workshop, held in Gisborne, New Zealand, April 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Australasia; basins; field trips; fluvial sedimentation; fore-arc basins; Gisborne New Zealand; guidebook; Mangatu River; nearshore sedimentation; New Zealand; North Island; sedimentation; sediments; source-to-sink concept; Tarndale Gully; Waipaoa River ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Tungsten bioavailability and toxicity in sunflowers (@@iHelianthus annuus@ L.) AN - 34466948; 200907-36-0102706 (CE); 09270983 (EN); 20091182455 (AN) AB - Tungsten (W) metal is used in an increasing number of industrial and consumer applications, from electronics to munitions. Tungsten is taken up by plants in natural soils, yet a limited number of studies have been conducted on plant responses to high soil concentrations of tungsten due to anthropogenic activities. This study was conducted to examine tungsten bioavailability and toxicity in sunflower, Helianthus annuus L Sunflowers were grown for 14 days in tungsten-spiked Gre-nada-Loring field soil that had been aged for six months. Sunflower total weight was significantly reduced at tungsten soil concentrations greater than or equal to 2600 mg kg super(-1), with leaf, stem, and root weights significantly reduced at concentrations greater than or equal to 2600, 325, and 3900 mg kg super(-1), respectively. Sunflower root and shoot length was also significantly reduced after exposure to tungsten levels greater than or equal to 3900 mg kg super(-1). Photo-synthetic pigments chlorophyll a and carotenoids were significantly increased at greater than or equal to 3900 mg kg super(-1), while chlorophyll b was unaffected. Tungsten was bioaccumulated in both sunflower roots and leaves in a dose-dependent manner, with roots having a bioaccumulation factor of approximately two-fold from soil to plant tissue. Furthermore, sunflowers showed differential bioaccumulation of tungsten species in leaves, stems and roots, based on tungsten soil concentrations. In conclusion, sunflower may be a useful phytoremediation plant for soils with tungsten levels below 2600 mg W kg super(-1). JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Johnson, D R AU - Inouye, L S AU - Bednar, A J AU - Clarke, J U AU - Winfield, L E AU - Boyd, R E AU - Ang, C Y AU - Goss, J AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Bldg. 6011, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA PY - 2009 SP - 141 PB - E P P Publications, 52 Kings Rd, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6EP, UK, [mailto:enquiries@epppublications.com], [URL:http://www.epppublications.com] VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Civil Engineering (CE); Environmental Engineering (EN); ANTE: Abstracts in New Technologies and Engineering (AN) KW - Tungsten KW - Sunflowers KW - Soils KW - Roots KW - Plants (organisms) KW - Chlorophylls KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Toxicity KW - Leaves KW - Article KW - EE 40:Water Pollution: Monitoring, Control & Remediation (EN) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/34466948?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%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=Tungsten+bioavailability+and+toxicity+in+sunflowers+%28%40%40iHelianthus+annuus%40+L.%29&rft.au=Johnson%2C+D+R%3BInouye%2C+L+S%3BBednar%2C+A+J%3BClarke%2C+J+U%3BWinfield%2C+L+E%3BBoyd%2C+R+E%3BAng%2C+C+Y%3BGoss%2C+J&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=141&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.939 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-11-14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.939 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigating the Fate of Nitroaromatic (TNT) and Nitramine (RDX and HMX) Explosives in Fractured and Pristine Soils AN - 21310002; 11840050 AB - Explosives compounds, known toxins, are loaded to soils on military training ranges predominantly during explosives detonation events that likely fracture soil particles. This study was conducted to investigate the fate of explosives compounds in aqueous slurries containing fractured and pristine soil particles. Three soils were crushed with a piston to emulate detonation- induced fracturing. X-ray diffraction, energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry, gas adsorption surface area measurements, and scanning electron microscopy were used to quantify and image pristine and fractured soil particles. Aqueous batches were prepared by spiking soils with solutions containing 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), octahydro 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX), and 2,4- dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT). Samples were collected over 92 d and the concentrations of the spiked explosives compounds and TNT transformation products 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene (2ADNT) and 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene (4ADNT) were measured. Our results suggest soil mineralogical and geochemical compositions were not changed during piston-induced fracturing but morphological differences were evident with fractured soils exhibiting more angular surfaces, more fine grained particles, and some microfracturing that is not visible in the pristine samples. TNT, 2,4-DNT, RDX, and HMX exhibited greater analyte loss over time in batch solutions containing fractured soil particles compared to their pristine counterparts. 2ADNT and 4ADNT exhibited greater concentrations in slurries containing pristine soils than in slurries containing fractured soils. Explosives compound transformation is greater in the presence of fractured soil particles than in the presence of pristine soil particles. Our results imply fractured soil particles promote explosive compound transformation and/or explosives compounds have a greater affinity for adsorption to fractured soil particle surfaces. JF - Journal of Environmental Quality AU - Douglas, Thomas A AU - Walsh, Marianne E AU - McGrath, Christian J AU - Weiss, Charles AJr AD - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab., P.O. Box 35170, Fort Wainwright, AK 99703, thomas.a.douglas@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 2285 EP - 2294 PB - American Society of Agronomy, 677 South Segoe Rd Madison WI 53711 USA VL - 38 IS - 6 SN - 0047-2425, 0047-2425 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Soil KW - Slurries KW - Microscopy KW - Adsorption KW - Particulates KW - Explosives KW - Military KW - X-ray diffraction KW - Spectrometry KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21310002?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%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+Quality&rft.atitle=Investigating+the+Fate+of+Nitroaromatic+%28TNT%29+and+Nitramine+%28RDX+and+HMX%29+Explosives+in+Fractured+and+Pristine+Soils&rft.au=Douglas%2C+Thomas+A%3BWalsh%2C+Marianne+E%3BMcGrath%2C+Christian+J%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+AJr&rft.aulast=Douglas&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=2285&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+Quality&rft.issn=00472425&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134%2Fjeq2008.0477 L2 - http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/38/6/2285.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-31 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Slurries; Microscopy; Adsorption; Explosives; Particulates; X-ray diffraction; Military; Spectrometry DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0477 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluating 'goodness-of-fit' for linear instrument calibrations through the origin AN - 20769854; 10310833 AB - Instrument calibrations for environmental analyses frequently entail fitting straight lines forced through the origin, where either the correlation coefficient, Pearson's r, or the percent relative standard deviation, %RSD, for a set of response factors is used to measure the 'goodness-of-fit'. However, these two approaches do not produce comparable linear calibrations. To do this, a weighted regression line needs to be calculated. A weighted regression coefficient is subsequently defined to evaluate the 'goodness-of-fit' and is expressed as function of the %RSD. JF - International Journal of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry AU - Georgian, Thomas AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise, Omaha, Nebraska, United States Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 383 EP - 388 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon Oxford OX14 4RN UK, [URL:http://www.taylorandfrancis.co.uk/] VL - 89 IS - 5 SN - 0306-7319, 0306-7319 KW - Environment Abstracts KW - Instruments KW - Environmental analysis KW - Calibration KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20769854?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%3Aenvabstractsmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Evaluating+%27goodness-of-fit%27+for+linear+instrument+calibrations+through+the+origin&rft.au=Georgian%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Georgian&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=383&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.issn=03067319&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F03067310802627247 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Instruments; Environmental analysis; Calibration DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03067310802627247 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Do Texas groundwater conservation districts matter? AN - 20687292; 10137394 AB - Texas faces a number of issues in an attempt to balance the water needs of a growing population while at the same time trying to conserve its water resources. Some of these issues include infrastructure improvements and provision of new supplies, changing patterns of use, water marketing and aquifer depletion. With aquifers providing 60% of all the water used in Texas, protecting and keeping these sources viable in the future is a key priority in addressing the state's water issues. With the state's emphasis on local control and the existence of between 80 and 90 groundwater districts state-wide, this research seeks to answer the question "Do groundwater districts in the State of Texas make a difference in groundwater depletion?" We use panel data from a set of 8,110 observations in a fixed effects regression to help us answer this question. We find evidence to suggest that groundwater districts do make a difference. After taking into consideration a couple of potential threats to validity, we run our model on a per district basis and by groundwater management areas. We also run it on a per aquifer basis and compare results with recommendations in the 2007 Texas Water Plan as a reality check. If we successfully answer the question that districts do in fact matter, the next logical step is to investigate what it is that districts do that makes a difference. JF - Water Policy AU - Foster, J R AD - School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA, Jodie.R.Foster@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 379 EP - 399 VL - 11 IS - 3 SN - 1366-7017, 1366-7017 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Groundwater Depletion KW - water policy KW - Aquifers KW - Water Demand KW - Depletion KW - marketing KW - Groundwater management KW - Statistical analysis KW - Water resources KW - Groundwater depletion KW - Water Policy KW - Marketing KW - Conservation KW - USA, Texas KW - Groundwater KW - infrastructure KW - Water Resources KW - ENA 13:Population Planning & Control KW - SW 2040:Groundwater management KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - M2 556.18:Water Management (556.18) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20687292?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%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Policy&rft.atitle=Do+Texas+groundwater+conservation+districts+matter%3F&rft.au=Foster%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Foster&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=379&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Policy&rft.issn=13667017&rft_id=info:doi/10.2166%2Fwp.2009.015 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Aquifers; Groundwater depletion; Groundwater management; Statistical analysis; Conservation; water policy; marketing; Water resources; Groundwater; infrastructure; Groundwater Depletion; Water Policy; Depletion; Water Demand; Marketing; Water Resources; USA, Texas DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2009.015 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Integrating Acoustic Mapping into Operational Aquatic Plant Management: a case study in Wisconsin AN - 20643800; 9368221 AB - Efficient planning, execution, and post-treatment monitoring of a submersed aquatic plant management operation require early detection and detailed information on the distribution of target and nontarget species within the treated waterbody. This requirement was the motivation behind the development of the acoustic-based Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Early Warning System (SAVEWS). After initial development in the late 1990s, the associated processing software was licensed to Biosonics, Inc., and is currently marketed as EcoSAV, along with the required hardware for conducting acoustic plant surveys. Since becoming commercially available in 2001, approximately 70 systems are in use world wide. While the system is used by a number of aquatic plant management researchers and operators, by far greater use is found in other fields, primarily ecological and applied studies of estuarine vegetation and coastal hydrography. While usage in any form is considered beneficial, a significant potential for operational usage within the aquatic plant management field is largely unrealized. Discussions with various aquatic plant management personnel identified concerns related to using the system operationally, including system acquisition and operations cost, data processing complexity, data accuracy, and acceptance by regulatory agencies. To address these concerns, a mapping demonstration was performed in conjunction with a chemical control application to treat Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) in a 515-acre (2.08 km super(2)) Wisconsin lake. One pretreatment and 2 post-treatment surveys were conducted. A ground-truth sampling effort was performed as part of the first post-treatment survey. The cost of conducting the mapping survey is broken out in terms of equipment costs and labor for planning, execution, and data analysis. We present techniques and summaries for data analysis and evaluate the added value of information provided by acoustic mapping to the overall management operation. JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Sabol, B M AU - Kannenberg, J AU - Skogerboe, J G AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 391803199, USA, Bruce.M.Sabol@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 44 EP - 52 VL - 47 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Myriophyllum KW - Freshwater KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Costs KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Planning KW - Sampling KW - Mapping KW - Data processing KW - Acoustics KW - Myriophyllum spicatum KW - Chemical control KW - Aquatic plants KW - Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Plant control KW - Legal aspects KW - Governments KW - Introduced species KW - Legislation KW - SW 5080:Evaluation, processing and publication KW - Q1 08222:Geographical distribution KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20643800?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Aquatic+Plant+Management&rft.atitle=Integrating+Acoustic+Mapping+into+Operational+Aquatic+Plant+Management%3A+a+case+study+in+Wisconsin&rft.au=Sabol%2C+B+M%3BKannenberg%2C+J%3BSkogerboe%2C+J+G&rft.aulast=Sabol&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=&rft.spage=44&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Aquatic+Plant+Management&rft.issn=01466623&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Plant control; Chemical control; Legal aspects; Aquatic plants; Governments; Mapping; Introduced species; Legislation; Lakes; Data processing; Acoustics; Vegetation; Sampling; Costs; Aquatic Plants; Planning; Myriophyllum; Surveys; Myriophyllum spicatum; USA, Wisconsin; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The potential for bioaccumulation of tungsten in earthworms - the effect of legacy lead on biouptake AN - 20571548; 9270985 AB - Studies have shown that the metal components in a soil influence the geochemical processes that occur in that soil (McGregor and Biowes 2002; Dermatas 2004; Petrunic and Al 2005). Since tungsten-nylon rounds have been fired on ranges that have historically been used for training using lead rounds, questions have been raised as to the effect that tungsten has on weathered lead and the other constituents in soils. Possible interactions with the various metals in the soil may affect tungsten's solubility or sorption properties, which may in turn influence its bioavailability. In order to determine the effect of weathered lead on tungsten biouptake, a bioavailability study was conducted using earthworms (Eisenia fetida). This study allowed direct comparison of lead and tungsten biouptake in a variety of soils amended with weathered lead and fired on with tungsten-nylon bullets. The effects of soil aging on biouptake were also studied. Results indicate that changes in earthworm biouptake of lead and tungsten, which resulted from the presence of legacy lead (LL) material in soils, varied and were soil-type dependent. Soil aging generally did not affect the biouptake of lead or tungsten by earthworms. JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Felt, D AU - Larson, S AU - Griggs, C AU - Nestler, C AU - Thompson, M AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 161 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Eisenia fetida KW - Lead KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20571548?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=The+potential+for+bioaccumulation+of+tungsten+in+earthworms+-+the+effect+of+legacy+lead+on+biouptake&rft.au=Felt%2C+D%3BLarson%2C+S%3BGriggs%2C+C%3BNestler%2C+C%3BThompson%2C+M&rft.aulast=Felt&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=161&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.932 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Lead; Eisenia fetida DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.932 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Partitioning between aqueous and soil system components for soluble tungsten and lead species AN - 20568455; 9270977 AB - The establishment of reliable sorptive K sub(d) values for a given metal in a given soil is a critical preliminary step in the determination of metal mobility. The distribution coefficient, K sub(d), is partially based on assuming the contaminant is a single species, and equilibrium conditions are established between the solid and aqueous phases. However, metals such as tungsten (W) may exist as different chemical species, depending on the aqueous and solid phase chemical environment, and are shown to require an extended period of time for the system to approach equilibrium. Due to the more involved speciation characteristics associated with tungsten, the effect of extended equilibrium periods on W K sub(d) values is examined in this study. The sorption characteristics of tungsten and lead in three natural silty sand (SM) soils are compared. Partition coefficients were obtained both at the traditional 24-hour contact time (K super(1) sub(d)) and then again after 100 days (K super(1) sub(d) super(00)). The K super(1) sub(d) values were for Pb representative of K super(1) sub(d) super(00) values for the soils examined. However, in the case of W, dynamic sorptive behavior was observed. The ratios of Day 100 to Day 1 distribution coefficients were 19.6, 6.2, and 2.4 for tungsten in samples SM1, SM2, and SM3, respectively. This suggests that a longer equilibration time may provide a more accurate reflection of W mobility in subsurface environments when using the sorption K sub(d) as a predictive tool. JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Griggs, C AU - Larson, S AU - Johnson, J AU - Felt, D AU - Nestler, C AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 83 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Chemical speciation KW - Tungsten KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20568455?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=Partitioning+between+aqueous+and+soil+system+components+for+soluble+tungsten+and+lead+species&rft.au=Griggs%2C+C%3BLarson%2C+S%3BJohnson%2C+J%3BFelt%2C+D%3BNestler%2C+C&rft.aulast=Griggs&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=83&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.917 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Tungsten DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.917 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Uptake of lead and tungsten in Cyperus esculentus in a small-arms range simulation AN - 20567750; 9270984 AB - A plant uptake study was conducted to assess the bioavailability of lead and tungsten generated by small-arms range firing. Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge) was planted in six soil types that had been fired on with tungsten-nylon and lead 5.56 mm rounds. After 45 days of growth, plants were harvested and tissue concentrations were analyzed for metal concentrations. Plant uptake of lead and tungsten in the post-firing soils was not affected by different firing distances. Plant uptake concentrations of tungsten were greater than those of lead in all six soils. Soils fired upon at identical firing distances of 25 m with tungsten-nylon and lead rounds showed that tungsten uptake concentrations were 113 times greater than the lead uptake. At 98.5 m, tungsten uptake concentrations were 108 times greater than lead uptake on tungsten-nylon and lead fired soils respectively. Tungsten was found to be more bioavailable to yellow nutsedge than was lead. JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Butler, AD AU - Medina, V F AU - Larson, S AU - Nestler, C AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 153 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Bioavailability KW - Cyperus esculentus KW - Lead KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20567750?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=Uptake+of+lead+and+tungsten+in+Cyperus+esculentus+in+a+small-arms+range+simulation&rft.au=Butler%2C+AD%3BMedina%2C+V+F%3BLarson%2C+S%3BNestler%2C+C&rft.aulast=Butler&rft.aufirst=AD&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=153&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.926 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Lead; Cyperus esculentus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.926 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Coupling of oxygen and pH requirements for effective microwave-assisted digestion of soils for tungsten analysis AN - 20567710; 9270981 AB - Fully understanding the environmental fate of tungsten is an ongoing challenge from an analytical perspective, due to the lack of effective laboratory methods for quantifying tungsten in soil. Developing the methods necessary to accurately and consistently monitor tungsten in soil matrices is essential for understanding the behavior of tungsten in the environment. Traditional digestion procedures such as SW-846 Method 3051 that are usually employed for the analysis of heavy metals are not consistently useful for the complete digestion of tungsten. The chemistry of tungsten presents unique challenges due to the metal's ability to polymerize under acidic conditions. Method modifications to the digestion procedure outlined in SW-846 Method 3051 to enhance tungsten recovery from soils are described in this paper. These method modifications were evaluated for determining tungsten concentration in five soil types. A modified acid composition of 8 mL of concentrated nitric acid and 2 mL of concentrated phosphoric acid as the digestion solution, coupled with 6 mL of 50% (w/w) hydrogen peroxide, increased the tungsten per cent recovery range in five different soil types. The modified digestion yielded an average recovery of 88.2% compared to 10.2% obtained using Method 3051 for the five soil types evaluated. Method modifications are presented, with the goal of improved extraction efficiency, and greater precision in the analysis of tungsten. JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Griggs, C AU - Larson, S AU - Nestler, C AU - Thompson, M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center- Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 121 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Digestion KW - Tungsten KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20567710?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=Coupling+of+oxygen+and+pH+requirements+for+effective+microwave-assisted+digestion+of+soils+for+tungsten+analysis&rft.au=Griggs%2C+C%3BLarson%2C+S%3BNestler%2C+C%3BThompson%2C+M&rft.aulast=Griggs&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.927 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Tungsten DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.927 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Polytungstate analysis by SEC-ICP-MS and direct- infusion ESI-MS AN - 20567169; 9270982 AB - Recent studies have investigated the geochemistry of tungsten at the laboratory scale, as well as at field sites, to determine its mobility and toxicity. Tungsten exists in most environmental matrices as the soluble and mobile tungstate anion, although polymerization to form poly- and heteropoly-tung-states can occur. The current study used size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) interfaced to inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to separate and quantify monomeric and polymeric tungsten species. Direct-infusion electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS) is then used to identify the polymeric species. The SEC method provides quantitative determination of these species in about 10 minutes, and has been applied to deionized water extracts of soils amended with tungsten powder and tissue from plants grown in the tungsten-amended soil. Both soil and plant matrices show monomeric and polymeric tungsten species, including phosphotungstate compounds. JF - Land Contamination & Reclamation AU - Bednar, A J AU - Kirgan, R A AU - Johnson AU - Russell, AL AU - Hayes, CA AU - McGrath, C J AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, anthony.j.bednar@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 129 VL - 17 IS - 1 SN - 0967-0513, 0967-0513 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Anions KW - Tungsten KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20567169?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.atitle=Polytungstate+analysis+by+SEC-ICP-MS+and+direct-+infusion+ESI-MS&rft.au=Bednar%2C+A+J%3BKirgan%2C+R+A%3BJohnson%3BRussell%2C+AL%3BHayes%2C+CA%3BMcGrath%2C+C+J&rft.aulast=Bednar&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=129&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Land+Contamination+%26+Reclamation&rft.issn=09670513&rft_id=info:doi/10.2462%2F09670513.929 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Tungsten DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2462/09670513.929 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Analysis of Bacterial Community Diversity in Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Bioreactors Treating 2,4-Dinitroanisole (DNAN) and n-Methyl-4-nitroaniline (MNA) Using 16S rRNA Gene Clone Libraries AN - 20452040; 9128458 AB - Clone libraries were used to evaluate the effects of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) and n-methyl-4-nitroaniline (MNA) on bacterial populations within three anaerobic bioreactors. Prior to the addition of DNAN and MNA greater than 69% of the clones in each reactor were identified as a single Desulfuromonales species. However, after 60 days of treatment the Desulfuromonales distribution decreased to less than 13% of the distribution and a clone identified as a Levilinea sp. became the dominant organism at greater than 27% of the clone distribution in each reactor suggesting the species may play an important roll in the reduction of DNAN and MNA. JF - Microbes and Environments AU - Arnett, Clint M AU - Rodriguez, Giselle AU - Maloney, Stephen W AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Y1 - 2009///0, PY - 2009 DA - 0, 2009 SP - 72 EP - 75 PB - Japanese Society of Microbial Ecology, Ibaragi University College of Agriculture Ami-machi Ibaraki 300-0393 Japan VL - 24 IS - 1 SN - 1342-6311, 1342-6311 KW - Genetics Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Biochemistry Abstracts 2: Nucleic Acids; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - 2,4-dinitroanisole KW - DNAN KW - insensitive munitions KW - MNA KW - n-methyl-4-nitroaniline KW - Bacteria KW - Play KW - Bioreactors KW - rRNA 16S KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - N 14830:RNA KW - G 07770:Bacteria KW - A 01300:Methods KW - J 02450:Ecology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20452040?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%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Microbes+and+Environments&rft.atitle=Analysis+of+Bacterial+Community+Diversity+in+Anaerobic+Fluidized+Bed+Bioreactors+Treating+2%2C4-Dinitroanisole+%28DNAN%29+and+n-Methyl-4-nitroaniline+%28MNA%29+Using+16S+rRNA+Gene+Clone+Libraries&rft.au=Arnett%2C+Clint+M%3BRodriguez%2C+Giselle%3BMaloney%2C+Stephen+W&rft.aulast=Arnett&rft.aufirst=Clint&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=72&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Microbes+and+Environments&rft.issn=13426311&rft_id=info:doi/10.1264%2Fjsme2.ME08556 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Play; Bioreactors; rRNA 16S; Bacteria DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME08556 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sulfate-Mediated Bacterial Population Shift in a Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)-Degrading Anaerobic Enrichment Culture AN - 20391470; 9066825 AB - The effects of sulfate on the population dynamics of an anaerobic hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)-degrading consortium were studied using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis. One hundred percent of the initial RDX was degraded in the sulfate-amended culture within 3 days of incubation. In the sulfate-unamended cultures, 35% of the initial RDX remained after 3 days and 8% after 7 days of incubation. Based on the T-RFLP distribution of the community 16S rDNA genes, the microcosm consisted predominantly of two organisms, a Geobacter sp. (78%) and an Acetobacterium sp. (14%). However, in the presence of sulfate, both species decreased to less than 3% of the total population within 3 days and an unclassified Clostridiaceae became the dominant organism at 40% the total fragment distribution. This indicated the explosive-degrading consortium had greater diversity than initially perceived and rapidly adapted to a readily available electron acceptor, which in turn stimulated RDX degradation. JF - Bioremediation Journal AU - Arnett, Clint M AU - Adrian, Neal R AU - Ringelberg, David B AU - Wesslund, Neil A AU - Yenser, Kelly N AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois, USA Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 52 EP - 63 PB - Taylor & Francis, 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE UK, [mailto:info@tandf.co.uk], [URL:http://www.tandf.co.uk] VL - 13 IS - 1 SN - 1088-9868, 1088-9868 KW - Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Pollution Abstracts KW - Sulfates KW - Bacteria KW - Bioremediation KW - Geobacter KW - Restriction fragment length polymorphism KW - hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine KW - Acetobacterium KW - Population dynamics KW - Sulfate KW - microcosms KW - Perception KW - Microcosms KW - Clostridiaceae KW - rRNA 16S KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - J 02320:Cell Biology KW - A 01320:Microbial Degradation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20391470?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%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Bioremediation+Journal&rft.atitle=Sulfate-Mediated+Bacterial+Population+Shift+in+a+Hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-triazine+%28RDX%29-Degrading+Anaerobic+Enrichment+Culture&rft.au=Arnett%2C+Clint+M%3BAdrian%2C+Neal+R%3BRingelberg%2C+David+B%3BWesslund%2C+Neil+A%3BYenser%2C+Kelly+N&rft.aulast=Arnett&rft.aufirst=Clint&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=52&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bioremediation+Journal&rft.issn=10889868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F10889860802690653 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bioremediation; Restriction fragment length polymorphism; hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine; Microcosms; Population dynamics; rRNA 16S; Sulfate; Sulfates; Bacteria; microcosms; Perception; Geobacter; Acetobacterium; Clostridiaceae DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10889860802690653 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geomorphologic Evolution of Barrier Islands along the Northern U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Implications for Engineering Design in Barrier Restoration AN - 20292188; 8904939 AB - Aspects of northern Gulf of Mexico (NGOM) (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida panhandle) processes and barrier islands that are pertinent to their geomorphologic response are contrasted with the broader knowledge base summarized by Schwartz (1973) and Leatherman (1979, 1985). Salient findings from studies documenting the short-term (storm-induced; timescales of hours, days, and weeks) and long-term (timescales of years, decades, and centuries) response of barrier island systems in the NGOM are synthesized into a conceptual model. The conceptual model illustrates the hypothetical evolution of three barrier island morphologies as they evolve through a typical Category 1-2 hurricane, including poststorm recovery (days to weeks) and long-term evolution (years to decades). Primary factors in barrier island geomorphologic response to storms, regardless of location, are the elevation of the island relative to storm (surge plus setup) elevation, and duration of the storm. Unique aspects of the NGOM barrier islands, compared with knowledge summarized for other barrier types, include (1) storm paths, wind speed, and large bays that create the potential for both Gulf and bayshore erosion and (2) in Louisiana and Mississippi, the potential for loading of the underlying substrate by the barrier island, which, through time, increases consolidation, relative sea level rise, overwash, morphologic change, and migration. We recommend that design of large-scale beach restoration projects incorporate the potential for (1) time-dependent consolidation of the underlying sediment due to project loading and future migration, (2) Gulf and bayshore erosion and overwash, and (3) eolian transport toward the Gulf from north winds. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Rosati, Julie Dean AU - Stone, Gregory W AD - aNBU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 109 St. Joseph Street, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL, 36628-0001, U.S.A., Julie.D.Rosati[at]usace.army.mil Y1 - 2009/01// PY - 2009 DA - Jan 2009 SP - 8 EP - 22 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 25 IS - 1 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Sea level KW - ASW, USA, Alabama KW - Sea level rise KW - Coastal research KW - Gulfs KW - Storms KW - Consolidation KW - Restoration KW - Wind speed KW - Islands KW - Geomorphology KW - Wind KW - Marine KW - barrier islands KW - migration KW - Sediment pollution KW - Beaches KW - Velocity KW - Overwash KW - Barrier Islands KW - Model Studies KW - Design KW - ASW, Mexico Gulf KW - Hurricanes KW - Erosion KW - ASW, USA, Mississippi KW - Storm surges KW - Elevation KW - Morphology KW - Barrier islands KW - Eolian transport KW - Evolution KW - ASW, USA, Florida, Florida Panhandle KW - Sea level changes KW - M2 551.515.2:Cyclones Hurricanes Typhoons (551.515.2) KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - Q2 09271:Coastal morphology KW - O 4090:Conservation and Environmental Protection KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20292188?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Geomorphologic+Evolution+of+Barrier+Islands+along+the+Northern+U.S.+Gulf+of+Mexico+and+Implications+for+Engineering+Design+in+Barrier+Restoration&rft.au=Rosati%2C+Julie+Dean%3BStone%2C+Gregory+W&rft.aulast=Rosati&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2F07-0934.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Geomorphology; Storm surges; Barrier islands; Eolian transport; Consolidation; Overwash; Sea level changes; Restoration; Wind speed; Erosion; Coastal research; Sea level rise; Storms; Hurricanes; Sediment pollution; migration; barrier islands; Beaches; Islands; Sea level; Morphology; Velocity; Design; Elevation; Gulfs; Wind; Evolution; Model Studies; Barrier Islands; ASW, Mexico Gulf; ASW, USA, Louisiana; ASW, USA, Mississippi; ASW, USA, Alabama; ASW, USA, Florida, Florida Panhandle; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/07-0934.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shoreline dynamics; measurement, analysis, and forecasting AN - 1861075630; 711477-7 JF - Eos (Washington, DC) AU - Barton, Chris C AU - Tebbens, Sarah F AU - Smigelski, J R AU - Birkemeier, William A AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract NG43B EP - 1209 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, SUPPL. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1861075630?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos+%28Washington%2C+DC%29&rft.atitle=Shoreline+dynamics%3B+measurement%2C+analysis%2C+and+forecasting&rft.au=Barton%2C+Chris+C%3BTebbens%2C+Sarah+F%3BSmigelski%2C+J+R%3BBirkemeier%2C+William+A%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Barton&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+SUPPL.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos+%28Washington%2C+DC%29&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Structure of the Wills Valley Anticline, Alabama AN - 1832595122; 771848-78 JF - Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies AU - Robinson, Delores M AU - Gates, Marty G AU - Goodliffe, Andrew M Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 663 EP - 671 PB - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA VL - 59 SN - 0533-6562, 0533-6562 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832595122?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%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transactions+-+Gulf+Coast+Association+of+Geological+Societies&rft.atitle=Structure+of+the+Wills+Valley+Anticline%2C+Alabama&rft.au=Robinson%2C+Delores+M%3BGates%2C+Marty+G%3BGoodliffe%2C+Andrew+M&rft.aulast=Robinson&rft.aufirst=Delores&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=663&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transactions+-+Gulf+Coast+Association+of+Geological+Societies&rft.issn=05336562&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - LA N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 N1 - CODEN - TGCGA9 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Developing three-dimension permafrost maps to support site characterization and long term monitoring, Fairbanks, Alaska AN - 1769969041; 2016-019447 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Snyder, C AU - Astley (CRREL), Beth AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract C51A EP - 0451 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - solute transport KW - soils KW - Fairbanks Alaska KW - permafrost KW - monitoring KW - geophysical surveys KW - three-dimensional models KW - pollutants KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - geophysical methods KW - solutes KW - radar methods KW - pollution KW - mapping KW - ground water KW - models KW - transport KW - soil pollution KW - movement KW - surveys KW - Alaska KW - water pollution KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1769969041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Developing+three-dimension+permafrost+maps+to+support+site+characterization+and+long+term+monitoring%2C+Fairbanks%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Snyder%2C+C%3BAstley+%28CRREL%29%2C+Beth%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Snyder&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-03 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Fairbanks Alaska; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; ground water; ground-penetrating radar; mapping; models; monitoring; movement; permafrost; pollutants; pollution; radar methods; soil pollution; soils; solute transport; solutes; surveys; three-dimensional models; transport; United States; water pollution ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A seasonal comparison of GPR and resistivity data quality for permafrost mapping AN - 1769969038; 2016-019439 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Astley (CRREL), Beth N AU - Campbell (CRREL), Seth W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract C43B EP - 0509 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - soils KW - Fairbanks Alaska KW - permafrost KW - geophysical surveys KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - well-logging KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - radar methods KW - mapping KW - resistivity KW - thawing KW - quality control KW - surveys KW - Alaska KW - seasonal variations KW - active layer KW - frozen ground KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1769969038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=A+seasonal+comparison+of+GPR+and+resistivity+data+quality+for+permafrost+mapping&rft.au=Astley+%28CRREL%29%2C+Beth+N%3BCampbell+%28CRREL%29%2C+Seth+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Astley+%28CRREL%29&rft.aufirst=Beth&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-03 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - active layer; Alaska; electrical methods; Fairbanks Alaska; frozen ground; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; ground-penetrating radar; mapping; permafrost; quality control; radar methods; resistivity; seasonal variations; soils; surveys; thawing; United States; well-logging ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Measuring bathymetry, runup, and beach volume change during storms; new methodology quantifies substantial changes in cross-shore sediment flux AN - 1769968534; 2016-019671 JF - Eos (Washington, DC) AU - Brodie, K L AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract NH11A EP - 1111 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, SUPPL. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - shore features KW - bars KW - radar methods KW - correlation KW - erosion features KW - nearshore environment KW - measurement KW - fluctuations KW - beaches KW - topography KW - sediments KW - storms KW - bathymetry KW - remote sensing KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1769968534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos+%28Washington%2C+DC%29&rft.atitle=Measuring+bathymetry%2C+runup%2C+and+beach+volume+change+during+storms%3B+new+methodology+quantifies+substantial+changes+in+cross-shore+sediment+flux&rft.au=Brodie%2C+K+L%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Brodie&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+SUPPL.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos+%28Washington%2C+DC%29&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-03 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bars; bathymetry; beaches; correlation; erosion features; fluctuations; measurement; nearshore environment; radar methods; remote sensing; sediments; shore features; storms; topography ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Barrow Arctic terrestrial observatory (BATO); an IPY legacy AN - 1769967704; 2016-019508 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Brown, Jerry AU - Hinkel, Kenneth M AU - Hollister, R D AU - Oberbauer, S F AU - Nelson, F E AU - Romanovsky, V E AU - Shiklomanov, N I AU - Sturm (CRREL), Matthew AU - Tweedie, C E AU - Webber, P J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract C53B EP - 07 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - monitoring KW - International Polar Year 2007-08 KW - Arctic region KW - ecosystems KW - research KW - climate change KW - Barrow Alaska KW - Barrow Observatory KW - observatories KW - ecology KW - Alaska KW - glacial geology KW - geomorphology KW - climate KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1769967704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Barrow+Arctic+terrestrial+observatory+%28BATO%29%3B+an+IPY+legacy&rft.au=Brown%2C+Jerry%3BHinkel%2C+Kenneth+M%3BHollister%2C+R+D%3BOberbauer%2C+S+F%3BNelson%2C+F+E%3BRomanovsky%2C+V+E%3BShiklomanov%2C+N+I%3BSturm+%28CRREL%29%2C+Matthew%3BTweedie%2C+C+E%3BWebber%2C+P+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Brown&rft.aufirst=Jerry&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-03 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Arctic region; Barrow Alaska; Barrow Observatory; climate; climate change; ecology; ecosystems; geomorphology; glacial geology; International Polar Year 2007-08; monitoring; observatories; research; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Integrated geophysical examination of the CRREL permafrost tunnel's Fairbanks Silt units, Fox, Alaska AN - 1769967641; 2016-019405 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Dinwiddie, C L AU - McGinnis, R N AU - Stillman, D AU - Grimm, R E AU - Hooper, D M AU - Bjella (CRREL), Kevin AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract C41A EP - 0429 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - tomography KW - permafrost KW - geophysical surveys KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - government agencies KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - tunnels KW - sediments KW - CRREL KW - Fairbanks Silt KW - soils KW - Fairbanks Alaska KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - radar methods KW - silt KW - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers KW - resistivity KW - Fox Alaska KW - surveys KW - Pleistocene KW - loess KW - Alaska KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1769967641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Integrated+geophysical+examination+of+the+CRREL+permafrost+tunnel%27s+Fairbanks+Silt+units%2C+Fox%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Dinwiddie%2C+C+L%3BMcGinnis%2C+R+N%3BStillman%2C+D%3BGrimm%2C+R+E%3BHooper%2C+D+M%3BBjella+%28CRREL%29%2C+Kevin%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Dinwiddie&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-03 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory; CRREL; electrical methods; Fairbanks Alaska; Fairbanks Silt; Fox Alaska; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; government agencies; ground-penetrating radar; loess; permafrost; Pleistocene; Quaternary; radar methods; resistivity; sediments; silt; soils; surveys; tomography; tunnels; U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; United States; upper Pleistocene ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shallow seismic reflection study of the Gschliefgraben landslide deposition area; interpretation and three dimensional modeling AN - 1722153390; 2014-000086 JF - Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences = Mitteilungen der Oesterreichischen Geologischen Gesellscaft AU - Eichkitz, Christoph G AU - Schreilechner, Marcellus G AU - Amtmann, Johannes AU - Schmid, Christian Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - 52 EP - 60 PB - Oesterreichische Geologische Gesellschaft, Vienna VL - 102 IS - 2 KW - geophysical surveys KW - Alps KW - North Austrian Molasse KW - Europe KW - Upper Austria KW - debris flows KW - Central Europe KW - mass movements KW - dimensions KW - stabilization KW - Molasse Basin KW - seismic profiles KW - monitoring KW - three-dimensional models KW - quantitative geomorphology KW - North Austrian Alps KW - geophysical methods KW - reflection methods KW - Austria KW - Gschliefgraben KW - seismic methods KW - landslides KW - surveys KW - geophysical profiles KW - Gschliefgraben Landslide KW - slope stability KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1722153390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Austrian+Journal+of+Earth+Sciences+%3D+Mitteilungen+der+Oesterreichischen+Geologischen+Gesellscaft&rft.atitle=Shallow+seismic+reflection+study+of+the+Gschliefgraben+landslide+deposition+area%3B+interpretation+and+three+dimensional+modeling&rft.au=Eichkitz%2C+Christoph+G%3BSchreilechner%2C+Marcellus+G%3BAmtmann%2C+Johannes%3BSchmid%2C+Christian&rft.aulast=Eichkitz&rft.aufirst=Christoph&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=52&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Austrian+Journal+of+Earth+Sciences+%3D+Mitteilungen+der+Oesterreichischen+Geologischen+Gesellscaft&rft.issn=2072-7151&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.univie.ac.at/ajes/archive/volume_102_2/eichkitz_et_al_ajes_v102_2.pdf http://www.univie.ac.at/ajes/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from Geoline, Bundesanstalt fur Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hanover, Germany N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 41 N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Dec. 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alps; Austria; Central Europe; debris flows; dimensions; Europe; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; Gschliefgraben; Gschliefgraben Landslide; landslides; mass movements; Molasse Basin; monitoring; North Austrian Alps; North Austrian Molasse; quantitative geomorphology; reflection methods; seismic methods; seismic profiles; slope stability; stabilization; surveys; three-dimensional models; Upper Austria ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Estimating frequency-of-occurrence of extreme water levels in Kotzebue Sound and Norton Sound from a storm surge model for 51 years between 1954 and 2004 AN - 1641012150; 2015-001375 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Kim, Sung-Chan AU - Chapman, Raymond S AU - Mark, David J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract EP43B EP - 0657 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - Northeast Pacific KW - western Alaska KW - simulation KW - Kotzebue Sound KW - spatial variations KW - ADCIRC KW - hydrodynamics KW - Arctic Ocean KW - storms KW - storm surges KW - meteorology KW - hydrology KW - East Pacific KW - Norton Sound KW - Bering Sea KW - shorelines KW - two-dimensional models KW - geometry KW - models KW - Chukchi Sea KW - North Pacific KW - Pacific Ocean KW - Alaska KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1641012150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Estimating+frequency-of-occurrence+of+extreme+water+levels+in+Kotzebue+Sound+and+Norton+Sound+from+a+storm+surge+model+for+51+years+between+1954+and+2004&rft.au=Kim%2C+Sung-Chan%3BChapman%2C+Raymond+S%3BMark%2C+David+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kim&rft.aufirst=Sung-Chan&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2014-12-31 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ADCIRC; Alaska; Arctic Ocean; Bering Sea; Chukchi Sea; East Pacific; geometry; hydrodynamics; hydrology; Kotzebue Sound; meteorology; models; North Pacific; Northeast Pacific; Norton Sound; Pacific Ocean; shorelines; simulation; spatial variations; storm surges; storms; two-dimensional models; United States; western Alaska ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 16384769; 14271 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications to existing portions of US 50/63 (Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. The study corridor boundaries represent logical limits for transportation improvements due to the transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway. These transitions lead to traffic operation deficiencies involving unsatisfactory handling of high traffic volumes and the associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor is approximately three miles long. The corridor boundaries are Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, eastward to the Eastland Drive interchange and from 300 feet south of the expressway north to McCarty Street. The portion of the study corridor looking at access to the MSP site includes portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are advanced as reasonable alternatives in this draft EIS. Under mainline Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A for improved prison access, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G would include a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette, instead of the half-diamond interchange. Access from Clark Avenue would remain the same. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastary district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and 4 business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and 4 business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would have the potential to impact a population that includes 38 percent minority individuals and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. 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: 090452, draft EIS--94 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, 2009 PY - 2009 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-D KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-06-15 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2009 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Field studies on sediment remediation AN - 1560082549; 2014-067821 JF - Electrochemical remediation technologies for polluted soils, sediments and groundwater AU - Wittle, J Kenneth AU - Pamukcu, Sibel AU - Bowman, Dave AU - Zanko, Lawrence M AU - Doering, Falk Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ SN - 9780470523650; 9780470383438 KW - United States KW - Duluth Minnesota KW - environmental analysis KW - Saint Louis County Minnesota KW - remediation KW - bioaccumulation KW - sediments KW - induced polarization KW - heavy metals KW - baseline studies KW - Minnesota KW - in situ KW - electrochemical methods KW - pollutants KW - oxidation KW - harbors KW - pollution KW - electrokinetics KW - organic compounds KW - lacustrine environment KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - lake sediments KW - field studies KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1560082549?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=Wittle%2C+J+Kenneth%3BPamukcu%2C+Sibel%3BBowman%2C+Dave%3BZanko%2C+Lawrence+M%3BDoering%2C+Falk&rft.aulast=Wittle&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9780470523650&rft.btitle=Field+studies+on+sediment+remediation&rft.title=Field+studies+on+sediment+remediation&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F9780470523650.ch32 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - NJ N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map, 6 tables, sect. N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-05 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470523650.ch32 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Electrokinetic removal of energetic compounds AN - 1560082499; 2014-067802 JF - Electrochemical remediation technologies for polluted soils, sediments and groundwater AU - Kessler, David A AU - Marsh, Charles P AU - Morefield, Sean Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ SN - 9780470523650; 9780470383438 KW - solute transport KW - electro-osmosis KW - clay KW - trinitrotoluene KW - RDX KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - triazines KW - explosives KW - transport KW - sediments KW - water pollution KW - geochemistry KW - mineral surface KW - dinitrotoluene KW - clastic sediments KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - adsorption KW - solubility KW - bioremediation KW - electrokinetics KW - organic compounds KW - HMX KW - soil pollution KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - permeability KW - public health KW - 02C:Geochemistry of rocks, soils, and sediments KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1560082499?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=Kessler%2C+David+A%3BMarsh%2C+Charles+P%3BMorefield%2C+Sean&rft.aulast=Kessler&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9780470523650&rft.btitle=Electrokinetic+removal+of+energetic+compounds&rft.title=Electrokinetic+removal+of+energetic+compounds&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F9780470523650.ch13 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 93 N1 - PubXState - NJ N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-05 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470523650.ch13 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Impacts of colonial deforestation on sediment organic carbon fluxes and budget using black carbon chronology; Waiapu Continental Shelf, New Zealand AN - 1507177220; 2014-017408 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Wadman, H M AU - Canuel, E A AU - Bauer, J E AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract B52A EP - 04 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, SUPPL. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - hydrology KW - stream transport KW - Australasia KW - erosion KW - sedimentation KW - Waiapu River KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - sediment budget KW - black carbon KW - transport KW - carbon KW - sediment yield KW - continental shelf KW - organic carbon KW - New Zealand KW - deforestation KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 02A:General geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1507177220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Impacts+of+colonial+deforestation+on+sediment+organic+carbon+fluxes+and+budget+using+black+carbon+chronology%3B+Waiapu+Continental+Shelf%2C+New+Zealand&rft.au=Wadman%2C+H+M%3BCanuel%2C+E+A%3BBauer%2C+J+E%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Wadman&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+SUPPL.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2014-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Australasia; black carbon; carbon; continental shelf; deforestation; erosion; fluvial sedimentation; hydrology; New Zealand; organic carbon; sediment budget; sediment yield; sedimentation; stream transport; transport; Waiapu River ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Mapping the tide water submarine and ice-marginal environment using interferometric bathymetry, ground-based Lidar and current velocities; Hubbard Glacier, Alaska AN - 1442372174; 2013-080750 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Finnegan, D C AU - Lawson, D E AU - Butler, W AU - Waller, T AU - Pratt, T AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract C12A EP - 08 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, SUPPL. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - laser methods KW - geophysical surveys KW - Wrangell Mountains KW - ground methods KW - geophysical methods KW - glaciers KW - mapping KW - interferometry KW - tides KW - ice movement KW - lidar methods KW - southeastern Alaska KW - marine environment KW - Mount Logan KW - submarine environment KW - surveys KW - Alaska KW - seasonal variations KW - glacial geology KW - bathymetry KW - Hubbard Glacier KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1442372174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Mapping+the+tide+water+submarine+and+ice-marginal+environment+using+interferometric+bathymetry%2C+ground-based+Lidar+and+current+velocities%3B+Hubbard+Glacier%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Finnegan%2C+D+C%3BLawson%2C+D+E%3BButler%2C+W%3BWaller%2C+T%3BPratt%2C+T%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Finnegan&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+SUPPL.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292324-9250 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-17 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; bathymetry; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; glacial geology; glaciers; ground methods; Hubbard Glacier; ice movement; interferometry; laser methods; lidar methods; mapping; marine environment; Mount Logan; seasonal variations; southeastern Alaska; submarine environment; surveys; tides; United States; Wrangell Mountains ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of a sediment transport model for the estuarine turbidity maximum in the upper Chesapeake Bay, USA AN - 1124736426; 2012-092884 JF - Geophysical Research Abstracts AU - Park, K AU - Wang, H V AU - Kim, S C AU - Oh, J H AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - EGU2009 EP - 2599 PB - Copernicus GmbH on behalf of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), Katlenburg-Lindau VL - 11 SN - 1029-7006, 1029-7006 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - settling KW - ocean circulation KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - three-dimensional models KW - sediment transport KW - shear stress KW - rivers and streams KW - suspended materials KW - tides KW - models KW - transport KW - mass balance KW - turbidity KW - ecology KW - depositional environment KW - estuarine environment KW - erodibility KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1124736426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geophysical+Research+Abstracts&rft.atitle=Development+of+a+sediment+transport+model+for+the+estuarine+turbidity+maximum+in+the+upper+Chesapeake+Bay%2C+USA&rft.au=Park%2C+K%3BWang%2C+H+V%3BKim%2C+S+C%3BOh%2C+J+H%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Park&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geophysical+Research+Abstracts&rft.issn=10297006&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/gra/gra.html LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - European Geosciences Union general assembly 2009 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chesapeake Bay; depositional environment; ecology; erodibility; estuarine environment; hydrology; mass balance; models; ocean circulation; rivers and streams; sediment transport; settling; shear stress; suspended materials; three-dimensional models; tides; transport; turbidity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A lunar regolith characterization kit (LRoCK) AN - 1033531324; 2012-072211 JF - Abstracts of Papers Submitted to the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference AU - Johnson, J B AU - Mungas, Greg S AU - Zacny, K AU - Albert, Donald G AU - Banerdt, B AU - Buehler, M AU - Elphic, Richard C AU - Lambert, J AU - Sturm, M AU - Johnson, K AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 EP - 1987 PB - Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX VL - 40 KW - penetrometers KW - density KW - Moon KW - thermal properties KW - gamma-ray spectroscopy KW - mechanical properties KW - properties KW - concepts KW - Raman spectroscopy KW - mineral composition KW - neutron probe KW - heat flow KW - drilling KW - seismic networks KW - Lunar Regolith Characterization Kit KW - spectroscopy KW - regolith KW - instruments KW - 04:Extraterrestrial geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1033531324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+of+Papers+Submitted+to+the+Lunar+and+Planetary+Science+Conference&rft.atitle=A+lunar+regolith+characterization+kit+%28LRoCK%29&rft.au=Johnson%2C+J+B%3BMungas%2C+Greg+S%3BZacny%2C+K%3BAlbert%2C+Donald+G%3BBanerdt%2C+B%3BBuehler%2C+M%3BElphic%2C+Richard+C%3BLambert%2C+J%3BSturm%2C+M%3BJohnson%2C+K%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+of+Papers+Submitted+to+the+Lunar+and+Planetary+Science+Conference&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1987.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fortieth lunar and planetary science conference N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 4 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Apr. 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-16 N1 - CODEN - #02179 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - concepts; density; drilling; gamma-ray spectroscopy; heat flow; instruments; Lunar Regolith Characterization Kit; mechanical properties; mineral composition; Moon; neutron probe; penetrometers; properties; Raman spectroscopy; regolith; seismic networks; spectroscopy; thermal properties ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Last major ice collapse (17ka-16ka) of the Anchorage Lowland, Alaska AN - 1020536851; 2012-056130 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Kopczynski, Sarah B AU - Lowell, Thomas AU - Evenson, E B AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 DA - 2009 SP - Abstract PP21A EP - 1334 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 90 IS - 52, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - tidewater glaciers KW - Knik Arm KW - isotopes KW - pebbles KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Matanuska Glacier KW - Elmendorf Moraine KW - Cenozoic KW - radioactive isotopes KW - ice KW - carbon KW - sediments KW - moraines KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - glaciers KW - glacial features KW - Upper Cook Inlet KW - provenance KW - eskers KW - Anchorage Lowland KW - calving KW - fluvial features KW - Pleistocene KW - Alaska KW - glacial lobes KW - geomorphology KW - C-14 KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020536851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Last+major+ice+collapse+%2817ka-16ka%29+of+the+Anchorage+Lowland%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Kopczynski%2C+Sarah+B%3BLowell%2C+Thomas%3BEvenson%2C+E+B%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kopczynski&rft.aufirst=Sarah&rft.date=2009-01-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=52%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2009 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-15 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Anchorage Lowland; C-14; calving; carbon; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; Elmendorf Moraine; eskers; fluvial features; geomorphology; glacial features; glacial lobes; glaciers; ice; isotopes; Knik Arm; Matanuska Glacier; moraines; pebbles; Pleistocene; provenance; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; sediments; tidewater glaciers; United States; Upper Cook Inlet; upper Pleistocene ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825292; 13672-080534_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825235; 13672-080534_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825185; 13672-080534_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825126; 13672-080534_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825114; 13672-080534_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825017; 13672-080534_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825007; 13672-080534_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824909; 13672-080534_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY, BENTON, YAKIMA, AND KITTITAS COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 36349533; 13672 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of impoundment storage options to benefit fish and provide for irrigation and future municipal water supply in the Yakima River basin of Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas counties, Washington is proposed. The finite water supply and limited storage capacity within the basin does not meet water supply demands in all years and results in significant adverse impacts to the basin's agriculture-based economy as well as to the basin's aquatic resources, particularly those resources supporting anadromous fish. Through a collaborative process with the Storage Study Technical Work Group, nonbinding flow objectives were developed to assist in monitoring goal achievement. Water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities would be improved by providing not less than 70 percent of the maximum water supply for irrigation districts during dry years, relying on diversions subject to proration; this 70 percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements annually. Future municipal water supply needs would be met by maintaining a full municipal water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water supply of 82,000 acre-feet per year to accommodate population growth to the year 2050. Monthly flow objectives for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches have been established. This final EIS considers three alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Washington Department of Ecology, three state of Washington alternatives, and a No Action Alternative; the latter alternative represents the most likely future expected in the absence of the provision of additional storage capacity. The joint alternatives consider water storage options as directed under feasibility authority, while the state alternatives consider both storage and nonstorage options. The alternatives would deal with water supply by variously manipulating impoundments, tapping groundwater, water conservation measures, market-based reallocation of water resources, and/or diverting water from other basins, particularly the Columbia River basin. The No Action Alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an action alternative would improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers to more closely resemble the natural (unregulated) hydrograph. An ample supply of irrigation and municipal water would be available to all users. The preferred alternative would prevent the negative impacts associated with the action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Manipulation of impoundments under an action alternative would result in surface elevation fluctuations, creating shoreline mudflats during drawdowns and damaging shoreline vegetation at high pool elevations. Downstream fluctuations would damage stream bank vegetation and exacerbate bank erosion. Diversion of water from the Columbia River would place additional stress on that already heavily used water resource. The No Action Alternative would gainsay the potential improvement of anadromous fish habitat by failing to restore the natural flow regimes of the Yakima and Naches rivers. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 108-7 and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0115D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080534, Final EIS-- 755 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--471 pages, December 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 08-65 KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Columbia River KW - Naches River KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Yakima Training Center (Army) KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Public Law 108-7, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=YAKIMA+RIVER+BASIN+WATER+STORAGE+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+BENTON%2C+YAKIMA%2C+AND+KITTITAS+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825960; 13674-080536_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825939; 13674-080536_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825241; 13674-080536_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825149; 13674-080536_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 756825144; 13674-080536_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BERTH 97-109 CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36342985; 13674 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of terminal improvements to allow the accommodation of container ships at Berths 97-109 of the Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, California is proposed. The project area lies within the West Basin portion of the port, approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles and adjacent to the San Pedro District of the port. The site is roughly bordered by the Southwest Slope on the north, John S. Gibson Boulevard and Pacific Avenue on the west, Knoll Hill, Front Street, and the Vincent Thomas Bridge in the South, and West Basin Channel on the east. Specifically, the project would provide for a new container terminal for the China Shipping Lanes at Berths 97-109. Key elements of the project would include new wharves, dredging of 41,000 cubic yards of berthing space, installation of 10 new A-frame cranes at berths 100 and 102, provision of transportation infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the existing terminal entrance, construction of two new bride structures connecting the Berth 97-109 terminal and Berth the 121-131 terminal across the Southwest Slip, relocation of the Catalina Terminal to South of the Vincent Thomas Bridge at Berth 95, and establishment by Los Angeles Harbor of a 40-year lease (2005 to 2045) with China Shipping Lines to operate the Berth 97-109 Container Terminal. The project would be developed in three phases, with estimated completion dates of 2003, 2008, and 2010. Subsequently, optimization or full utilization of each phase would occur in 2005 (one year after the first construction phase), 2015 (eight years after the second construction phase), and 2030 (20 years after the third construction phase). The first phase has been completed and is in operation as a container terminal, but this phase is reassessed as part of the current EIS process. When operating at optimal capacity in 2030, the Berth 97-109 container terminal could handle approximately 1.55 million 20-foot equivalent units per year, which represents an annual throughput of 856,906 containers. To accommodate this annual throughput, 234 ship calls and associated tugboat operations would be required, with two tugs for each ship docking and undocking, for a total of four tugs per call, or 936 tugboat operations per year. In addition, a total of 3,720 daily truck trips and up to 950 annual round trip rail movements would be required. Eleven alternatives, including the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, were considered during preparation of the draft EIS of August 2006, which was been retracted for amendment and is being recirculated in the amended form as a recirculated draft EIS in April 2008. Of these alternatives, six were eliminated from consideration, while five are carried forward for further evaluation. A preferred alternative is identified in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would enable the port to accommodate state-of-the-art container ships that otherwise would require lightening and/or unloading at sea. Accommodation of such ships within port dock facilities would reduce unloading times, improve multimodal connections, and generally save freight costs. The terminal would employ hundreds of workers and otherwise boost the local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity, engendering some risk of disruption of service and facility damage due to earthquake. Traffic generated by the terminal would cause six intersections to exceed city congestion criteria. Construction activities would generated noise in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of several residential communities. The facilities would significantly degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Operational emissions of air pollutants could result in localized exceedance of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter standards, and operational odors could reach objectionable levels. Site disturbances and displacements could affect archaeological and paleontological resources, The additional container vessels traversing the harbor would pose significant additional risk of vessel collisions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the August 2006 draft EIS, see 06-0612D, Volume 30, Number 4. For the abstract of the recirculated draft EIS, see 08-0348D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080536, Final EIS--512 pages, Appendices--401 pages, December 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Particulates KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36342985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BERTH+97-109+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Influence of Wave Energetics on Nearshore Storms and Adjacent Shoreline Morphology T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42564511; 5465403 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Wadman, H AU - McNinch, J AU - Hanson, J Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Storms KW - Morphology KW - Waves KW - Coastal morphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42564511?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Influence+of+Wave+Energetics+on+Nearshore+Storms+and+Adjacent+Shoreline+Morphology&rft.au=Wadman%2C+H%3BMcNinch%2C+J%3BHanson%2C+J&rft.aulast=Wadman&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Possible Explanation for Elevated Shoreline Change at Erosional Hotspots: Observations of Waves, Surf-Zone Bathymetry, and Shoreline Morphology During a Storm Event T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42551254; 5465703 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - McNinch, J AU - Brodie, K AU - Wadman, H AU - Miselis, J Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Storms KW - Bathymetry KW - Morphology KW - Hot spots KW - Waves KW - Coastal morphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42551254?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=A+Possible+Explanation+for+Elevated+Shoreline+Change+at+Erosional+Hotspots%3A+Observations+of+Waves%2C+Surf-Zone+Bathymetry%2C+and+Shoreline+Morphology+During+a+Storm+Event&rft.au=McNinch%2C+J%3BBrodie%2C+K%3BWadman%2C+H%3BMiselis%2C+J&rft.aulast=McNinch&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Bow Shock Configurations as Affected by Planetary Dipole Tilt under Intermediate MHD Solar Wind Conditions T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42549788; 5469120 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Cable, S AU - Lin, Y Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Shock KW - Wind UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42549788?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Bow+Shock+Configurations+as+Affected+by+Planetary+Dipole+Tilt+under+Intermediate+MHD+Solar+Wind+Conditions&rft.au=Cable%2C+S%3BLin%2C+Y&rft.aulast=Cable&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - An Observed Regime Shift in SE Michigan Bankfull (Q1.5) Streamflow Records T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42545095; 5463668 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Dahl, T AU - Mahoney, M AU - Selegean, J Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Flow rates KW - Stream flow UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42545095?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=An+Observed+Regime+Shift+in+SE+Michigan+Bankfull+%28Q1.5%29+Streamflow+Records&rft.au=Dahl%2C+T%3BMahoney%2C+M%3BSelegean%2C+J&rft.aulast=Dahl&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - An Efficient, Advanced Regularized Inversion Method for Highly Parameterized Environmental Models T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42544842; 5463521 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Skahill, B AU - Baggett, J Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Inversion KW - Models UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42544842?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=An+Efficient%2C+Advanced+Regularized+Inversion+Method+for+Highly+Parameterized+Environmental+Models&rft.au=Skahill%2C+B%3BBaggett%2C+J&rft.aulast=Skahill&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Comparison of Directional Wave Measurements from an ADCP, AWAC and Pressure Sensor Array T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42543801; 5464818 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Hathaway, K AU - Long, C Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Pressure sensors KW - Waves KW - Doppler sonar KW - Current profiles KW - Wave measurement KW - Acoustic current meters UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42543801?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=A+Comparison+of+Directional+Wave+Measurements+from+an+ADCP%2C+AWAC+and+Pressure+Sensor+Array&rft.au=Hathaway%2C+K%3BLong%2C+C&rft.aulast=Hathaway&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A New Approximate Solution to the General Infiltration Problem for Layered Soils T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42542378; 5463861 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Talbot, C AU - Ogden, F Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Soil KW - Infiltration UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42542378?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=A+New+Approximate+Solution+to+the+General+Infiltration+Problem+for+Layered+Soils&rft.au=Talbot%2C+C%3BOgden%2C+F&rft.aulast=Talbot&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Improvement of Armor Stone Performance for Protection of Great Lakes Coastal Navigation Areas T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42540725; 5465011 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Zakikhani, M AU - Harrelson, D Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - North America, Great Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Lakes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42540725?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Improvement+of+Armor+Stone+Performance+for+Protection+of+Great+Lakes+Coastal+Navigation+Areas&rft.au=Zakikhani%2C+M%3BHarrelson%2C+D&rft.aulast=Zakikhani&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Application of Physics Based Distributed Hydrologic Models to Assess Anthropologic Land Disturbance in Watersheds T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42540003; 5462342 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Downer, C AU - Ogden, F AU - Byrd, A Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Watersheds KW - Disturbance KW - Models KW - Social aspects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42540003?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Application+of+Physics+Based+Distributed+Hydrologic+Models+to+Assess+Anthropologic+Land+Disturbance+in+Watersheds&rft.au=Downer%2C+C%3BOgden%2C+F%3BByrd%2C+A&rft.aulast=Downer&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Impact of Corps Flood Control Reservoirs in the June 2008 Upper Mississippi Flood T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42539220; 5462155 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Charley, W AU - Stiman, J Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - USA, Mississippi KW - Floods KW - Flood control KW - Reservoirs UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42539220?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=The+Impact+of+Corps+Flood+Control+Reservoirs+in+the+June+2008+Upper+Mississippi+Flood&rft.au=Charley%2C+W%3BStiman%2C+J&rft.aulast=Charley&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Comparison between Ground and Helicopter Electromagnetic Sea Ice Thickness Measurements from SEDNA during APLIS07 in the Beaufort Sea T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42538643; 5459465 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Richter-Menge, J AU - Geiger, C AU - Sood, S AU - Elder, B AU - Hendricks, S AU - Martin, T AU - Haas, C Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Helicopters KW - Sea ice UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42538643?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Comparison+between+Ground+and+Helicopter+Electromagnetic+Sea+Ice+Thickness+Measurements+from+SEDNA+during+APLIS07+in+the+Beaufort+Sea&rft.au=Richter-Menge%2C+J%3BGeiger%2C+C%3BSood%2C+S%3BElder%2C+B%3BHendricks%2C+S%3BMartin%2C+T%3BHaas%2C+C&rft.aulast=Richter-Menge&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Evaluating Locally Conservative Finite Element Methods for Flow in the Vadose Zone T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42538625; 5462291 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Farthing, M AU - Kees, C AU - Chrispell, J AU - Jenkins, E Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Finite element method UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42538625?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Evaluating+Locally+Conservative+Finite+Element+Methods+for+Flow+in+the+Vadose+Zone&rft.au=Farthing%2C+M%3BKees%2C+C%3BChrispell%2C+J%3BJenkins%2C+E&rft.aulast=Farthing&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Megapackets and Megapseudosynclines Profiled With GPR East of the Megadunes Region, East Antarctica T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42535302; 5459739 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Arcone, S AU - Jacobel, R Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Antarctica, East Antarctica UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42535302?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Megapackets+and+Megapseudosynclines+Profiled+With+GPR+East+of+the+Megadunes+Region%2C+East+Antarctica&rft.au=Arcone%2C+S%3BJacobel%2C+R&rft.aulast=Arcone&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - FASST Modeled Snow Predictions in Vegetatated and Non-Vegetated Environments T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42535225; 5459629 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Frankenstein, S Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Snow UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42535225?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=FASST+Modeled+Snow+Predictions+in+Vegetatated+and+Non-Vegetated+Environments&rft.au=Frankenstein%2C+S&rft.aulast=Frankenstein&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Two-Way Coupled Watershed-Nearshore Modeling Using DBuilder and ESMF T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42535185; 5460147 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Cheng, H AU - Cheng, J AU - Hunter, R AU - Campbell, T Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42535185?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Two-Way+Coupled+Watershed-Nearshore+Modeling+Using+DBuilder+and+ESMF&rft.au=Cheng%2C+H%3BCheng%2C+J%3BHunter%2C+R%3BCampbell%2C+T&rft.aulast=Cheng&rft.aufirst=H&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Albedo Changes of the Arctic Sea Ice Cover T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42534608; 5459994 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Perovich, D AU - Light, B AU - Jones, K AU - Eicken, H AU - Runciman, K AU - Nghiem, S AU - Stroeve, J AU - Markus, T Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Arctic KW - Sea ice KW - Polar environments KW - Albedo UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42534608?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Albedo+Changes+of+the+Arctic+Sea+Ice+Cover&rft.au=Perovich%2C+D%3BLight%2C+B%3BJones%2C+K%3BEicken%2C+H%3BRunciman%2C+K%3BNghiem%2C+S%3BStroeve%2C+J%3BMarkus%2C+T&rft.aulast=Perovich&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Computational Modeling of Multiphase Flow and Transport with Python T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42534458; 5463374 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Kees, C AU - Farthing, M AU - Hines, A AU - Howington, S Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Computer applications KW - Multiphase flow KW - Python UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42534458?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Computational+Modeling+of+Multiphase+Flow+and+Transport+with+Python&rft.au=Kees%2C+C%3BFarthing%2C+M%3BHines%2C+A%3BHowington%2C+S&rft.aulast=Kees&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Using NIR Photography to Document Snow Stratigraphy Quickly: Lessons from Three Field Campaigns T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42534433; 5459880 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Sturm, M AU - Tape, K AU - Liston, G AU - Rutter, N Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Stratigraphy KW - Photography KW - Snow UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42534433?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Using+NIR+Photography+to+Document+Snow+Stratigraphy+Quickly%3A+Lessons+from+Three+Field+Campaigns&rft.au=Sturm%2C+M%3BTape%2C+K%3BListon%2C+G%3BRutter%2C+N&rft.aulast=Sturm&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mercury and Major Element Snowmelt Chemistry at an Alaskan Arctic Coastal Site T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42532802; 5459960 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Douglas, T AU - Prevost, R AU - Sturm, M AU - Blum, J AU - Sherman, L AU - Berezovskaya, S Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Arctic KW - Snowmelt KW - Mercury KW - Polar environments KW - Coastal zone KW - Major elements UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42532802?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Mercury+and+Major+Element+Snowmelt+Chemistry+at+an+Alaskan+Arctic+Coastal+Site&rft.au=Douglas%2C+T%3BPrevost%2C+R%3BSturm%2C+M%3BBlum%2C+J%3BSherman%2C+L%3BBerezovskaya%2C+S&rft.aulast=Douglas&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Polar Science in a Time of Rapid Change T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42532079; 5459703 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Albert, M Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42532079?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Polar+Science+in+a+Time+of+Rapid+Change&rft.au=Albert%2C+M&rft.aulast=Albert&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Five Snow Sublimation Estimates From Barrow, Alaska Using Eddy Correlation and One- and Two-Level Profile Methods T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42531627; 5459589 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Wagner, A AU - Sturm, M AU - Liston, G AU - Mahrt, L AU - Vickers, D Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - USA, Alaska, Barrow KW - Sublimation KW - Snow KW - Oceanic eddies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42531627?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Five+Snow+Sublimation+Estimates+From+Barrow%2C+Alaska+Using+Eddy+Correlation+and+One-+and+Two-Level+Profile+Methods&rft.au=Wagner%2C+A%3BSturm%2C+M%3BListon%2C+G%3BMahrt%2C+L%3BVickers%2C+D&rft.aulast=Wagner&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Monitoring Tidewater Terminus Dynamics Using Laser Ranging and Fixed Photography: Hubbard Glacier, Southeast Alaska T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42531354; 5459516 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Finnegan, D AU - Lawson, D AU - Hanlon, G AU - O'Neel, S AU - Kalli, G Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - USA, Alaska KW - Photography KW - Lasers KW - Glaciers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42531354?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Monitoring+Tidewater+Terminus+Dynamics+Using+Laser+Ranging+and+Fixed+Photography%3A+Hubbard+Glacier%2C+Southeast+Alaska&rft.au=Finnegan%2C+D%3BLawson%2C+D%3BHanlon%2C+G%3BO%27Neel%2C+S%3BKalli%2C+G&rft.aulast=Finnegan&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Arctic Sea Ice Melt in the Summer of 2008 T2 - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AN - 42529492; 5456043 JF - 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU 2008) AU - Perovich, D AU - Richter-Menge, J AU - Elder, B AU - Polashenski, C Y1 - 2008/12/15/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 15 KW - Arctic KW - Summer KW - Sea ice KW - Polar environments UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/42529492?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.atitle=Arctic+Sea+Ice+Melt+in+the+Summer+of+2008&rft.au=Perovich%2C+D%3BRichter-Menge%2C+J%3BElder%2C+B%3BPolashenski%2C+C&rft.aulast=Perovich&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2008+Fall+Meeting+of+the+American+Geophysical+Union+%28AGU+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/sessions5?meeting=fm08 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-06 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH HILLSIDE ROAD EXTENSION, MANSFIELD, CONNECTICUT. AN - 36344277; 13667 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of North Hillside Road on the Storrs campus of the University of Connecticut from its current terminus northward to US 44 in the town of Mansfield, Connecticut is proposed. The existing two-lane North Hillside Road extends from North Eagleville Road (State Route 430) to a point just north of the Charter Apartments. The roadway extension has been contemplated since the 1970s, when the North Campus core area was considered for the development of a research and technology park. In 2005, approximately $6.0 million was appropriated by the federal government for the construction of North Hillside Road. The proposed 3,400-foot extension of the North Hillside Road would pass through a tract of land adjacent to the Storrs core academic campus, known as the North Campus, to US 44 between two parcels occupied by New Alliance Bank and Bank of America across from Professional Park Drive, creating a four-way intersection, approximately 2,000 feet west of Route 195 (Storrs Road). US 44 would be widened at the intersection with the proposed North Hillside Road Extension to add exclusive east bound and westbound left-turn lanes, an eastbound right-turn lane and a new traffic signal. The North Hillside Road approach to this intersection would be treated as a primary university entrance, with appropriate signage, boulevard median plantings, and landscaping. Five alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would provide an alternative entrance to the university, relieve traffic congestion on surrounding roads, and facilitate the development of the North Campus core area. Expected research facility developments in the North Campus area would result in a significant contribution to local employment rolls, with a potential for the creation of 2,803 jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way development would displace less than one acre of prime farmland soils to be replaced by 36.3 acres of farmland within the campus. Three forested wetland areas, encompassing .034 acres of wetlands, would be filled, though this impact would be mitigated by the creation of 2.2 acres of wetland elsewhere. Additional traffic generated by the developments expected in the North Campus area would significantly reduce the level of service at several local intersections. Noise levels along the new facility would increase by only 2.2 decibels on the A-weighted scale, but remain well below federal limits. Three we LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080529, 378 pages and maps, December 15, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Universities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&rft.title=NORTH+HILLSIDE+ROAD+EXTENSION%2C+MANSFIELD%2C+CONNECTICUT.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826300; 13664-080526_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826286; 13664-080526_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826276; 13664-080526_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 756826229; 13664-080526_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756826229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825187; 13663-080525_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey 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/756825187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825175; 13663-080525_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey 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/756825175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 756825035; 13663-080525_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey 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/756825035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-295/I-76/ROUTE 42 DIRECT CONNECTION, BOROUGH OF BELLMAWR, BOROUGH OF MOUNT EPHRAIM, AND GLOUCESTER CITY, CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349497; 13663 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 295 (I-295)/I-76/Route 42 interchange, located in Borough of Bellmawr, Borough of Mount Ephraim, and Gloucester City, Camden County, New Jersey is proposed. The interchange corridor experiences congestion and has an accident rate that is more than seven times the state average for facilities of this class due to high traffic volumes, complex lane configuration, and through-traffic weaving movements. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives follow a similar alignment across the northwestern corner of New St. Mary's Cemetery. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a direct connection for I-295 that crosses over I076/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. Alternative D1 would resemble Alternative D, except it would retain Al Jo's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative G2 would utilize a double-decker highway design, with I-295 southbound atop I-295 northbound. Alternative H1 would resemble Alternative G2, except that H1 would retain Al Joe's Curve for use as a ramp from I-295 southbound to Route 42 southbound. Alternative K would provide for a direct connection for I-295 that would cross under I-76/Route 42, thereby eliminating Al Jo's Curve entirely. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve safety within the interchange by replacing the existing substandard structure with a system that would meet interstate standards for geometric design. The interchange would provide a direct connection for through traffic on I-295 with a design speed consistent with that of the interchange's approach roadways. In addition, the project would reduce congestion on local arterials such as Route 168 and US 130 and decrease commuter traffic on neighborhood streets, thereby improving local traffic mobility, pedestrian safety, and the level of service on I-295. Noise levels would decrease and ambient air quality would improve. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of up to 13 residences, possibly one business and, for all action alternatives, five community facilities. Floodplain and wetlands would be displaced. Traffic generated noise levels in the vicinity of the interchange would exceed federal standards at 145 to 216 residential receptor sites. Existing noise walls would be removed in some areas, resulting in exacerbation of noise standard violations. The Bellmawr Park Mutual Housing Historic District would suffer due to demolition of contributing structures and the introduction of the interchange into the area. The project would encroach on New St. Mary's Cemetery and other areas likely to contain hazardous wastes. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0071D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080525, 321 pages (oversize, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NJ-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cemeteries KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey 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/36349497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=I-295%2FI-76%2FROUTE+42+DIRECT+CONNECTION%2C+BOROUGH+OF+BELLMAWR%2C+BOROUGH+OF+MOUNT+EPHRAIM%2C+AND+GLOUCESTER+CITY%2C+CAMDEN+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN DELIVERY SYSTEM: CONTRACTS FOR USE OF EXCESS STORAGE CAPACITY IN THE PUEBLO RESERVOIR, ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN, COLORADO. AN - 36346535; 13664 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the cities of Colorado Springs and Fountain, the Security Water District, and the Pueblo Metropolitan District is proposed to allow for the development of a water supply project to be known as the Southern Delivery System (SDS) Project in Colorado. The contract participants have a need to use developed and undeveloped water supplies to meet most of all projected future demands through 2046. Under the proposed action, the abovementioned contracts, each with a 40-year term, would allow for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project facilities and the excess storage capacity in the Pueblo Reservoir and the exchange of water between the reservoir and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. Specifically, the contracts would cover storage of water in the reservoir, conveyance of water through facilities associated with the reservoir, and exchange of water between the reservoir and Reclamation-operated reservoirs in the upper Arkansas River basin. A special use permit or other agreement from Reclamation could be necessary to connect the SDS Project pipeline to Reclamation facilities. Pueblo West would continue to maintain its existing conveyance with Reclamation to use the joint use manifold from the Pueblo Reservoir. A third federal was action analyzed in the February 2008 draft EIS and again in this final EIS, proposing the approval of an administrative trade of an equal amount of capacity in the Fountain Valley Authority pipeline for capacity in the SDS Project untreated water pipeline and water treatment plant. The trade would allow Fountain to use a portion of Colorado Springs' Fountain Valley Authority capacity in trade for Colorado Springs' use of an equal amount of Fountain's capacity in the SDS Project. Transportation of the water taken under the contracts would require the installation of 2,200 feet of 78-inch pipeline, capable of conveying 96 million gallons per day (mgd), and 1,100 feet of 72-inch pipeline capable of conveying 78 mgd; installation of a 160-foot, 36-inch pipeline capable of conveying 18 mgd of untreated water to the Pueblo West Pump Station; a 43-mile, 66-inch pipeline and three pump stations capable of conveying 78 mgd of untreated water, a 35,500-acre-foot local terminal storage reservoir to store untreated water; a water treatment plant with a 109 mgd capacity to provide potable water for municipal and industrial use; transmission pipelines to convey water from the water treatment plant to local distribution systems; and a 28,500-acre-foot return flow storage reservoir and associated conveyance system to store and release Colorado Springs' reusable return flows. In addition, the project would require the relocation of electrical transmission lines at the local terminal storage reservoir site. A supplemental information report, attached to the draft EIS in October 2008, report addresses modification to the seven alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the preferred alternative, and modification of the study area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SDS Project would provide a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply for the contractees' consumers. The participants need to develop additional water storage, delivery, and treatment capacity to provide system redundancy. Finally, the participants wish to perfect and deliver their existing Arkansas River basin water rights. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Pipeline and water treatment plant construction and construction of ancillary facilities, such as transmission lines and pumping plants, would displace soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. The pipeline would traverse sensitive desert land, including land providing habitat for federally protected animal species. Facility siting could result in the restriction or elimination of future mineral extraction in underlying areas. The availability of surplus water would spur residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as the development of irrigated farmland, resulting in even greater conversion of desert and other natural lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 08-0222D, Volume 32, Number 2 and 08-0480D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080526, 1,151 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Mineral Resources KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Pueblo Reservoir KW - Arkansas River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+DELIVERY+SYSTEM%3A+CONTRACTS+FOR+USE+OF+EXCESS+STORAGE+CAPACITY+IN+THE+PUEBLO+RESERVOIR%2C+ARKANSAS+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAIL LINE BETWEEN NORTH POLE AND DELTA JUNCTION, ALASKA (SBT FINANCE DOCKET NO. 35468). AN - 36344774; 13662 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of an 80-mile rail line from North Pole to Delta Junction in Alaska is proposed by the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC). The existing ARRC network extends from Seward through Anchorage and Fairbanks, ending at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) through the Eielson Branch rail line. The Eielson Branch line serves Eielson AFB and the North Pole Refinery. At present, commercial freight, other than that associated with Eielson AFB and the refinery, generally enters and leaves the study area by truck via Richardson Highway (Alaska Route 4, extending from Valdez to Delta Junction, and Alaska Route 2, extending from Delta Junction to Fairbanks) or the Alaska Highway (Alaska Route 2 from Delta Junction to Tok and beyond). To be known as the Northern Rail Extension, the proposed single-track line would be located in Interior Alaska, southeast of the city of Fairbanks, and would constitute an extension of the existing rail line that ends at Eielson Air Force Base. The rail line would lie within a 200-foot-wide rights-of-way that would also contain, sidings at several locations, a power transmission line, a buried communications cable, and an access road. ARRC would construct other facilities, such as communications towers and a passenger platform at Delta Junction, to support rail operations. The project would include the construction several culverts and bridges. Several routing options are contained within the proposed action. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The new line would extend the freight and passenger rail service the ARRC provides to the region, provide a transportation alternative to Richardson Highway for individuals traveling between Fairbanks and Delta Junction, and allow year-round ground access to the Tanana Flats and Donnely training areas in the southwest and west sides of the Tanana River for U.S. Army and Air Force personnel and freight. The rail line would be least susceptible to inclement winter weather than the highway and could increase tourism to destinations within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Vegetation would be cleared and soils and permafrost disturbed within the 200-foot rights-of-way, resulting in the loss of the associated wildlife habitat and the exacerbation of erosion and sedimentation in the area. Forested wetlands, scrub/shrub and emergent wetlands, and other significant water resource sites would be displaced or degraded. Habitat for bear, caribou, moose, wolf, and furbearers would be lost. Numerous streams and rivers, some of which provide top quality fish habitat, would be traversed. Significant cultural and recreational resources would be adversely affected. Noise and vibrations from train operations would exceed federal standards at hundreds of sensitive receptor sites. Along some sections of the track, facilities and trains would be inconsistent with federal visual resource management objectives. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080524, Summary-41 pages, Draft EIS--652 pages, Appendices--571 pages, December 12, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Bridges KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Ice Environments KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Eielson Air Force Base KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28SBT+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.title=ALASKA+RAILROAD+CORPORATION+CONSTRUCTION+AND+OPERATION+OF+A+RAIL+LINE+BETWEEN+NORTH+POLE+AND+DELTA+JUNCTION%2C+ALASKA+%28SBT+FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+35468%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 12, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 34 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126475; 13655-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 27 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126466; 13655-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 26 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126459; 13655-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 25 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126450; 13655-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126423; 13655-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 19 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126415; 13655-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126408; 13655-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126395; 13655-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126384; 13655-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126374; 13655-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126362; 13655-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126355; 13655-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126352; 13655-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126352?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126345; 13655-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 31 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126336; 13655-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126334; 13655-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 18 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126332; 13655-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126327; 13655-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126321; 13655-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126315; 13655-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126311; 13655-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126298; 13655-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126292; 13655-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126283; 13655-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126276; 13655-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126266; 13655-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126256; 13655-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126248; 13655-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126242; 13655-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126226; 13655-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126213; 13655-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126207; 13655-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126201; 13655-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126193; 13655-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126186; 13655-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 37 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126168; 13655-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 33 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873126082; 13655-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873126082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 38 of 38] T2 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873125947; 13655-7_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/873125947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KOSCIUSZKO BRIDGE PROJECT, ROUTE I-278, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 36346476; 13655 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge, a 1.1-mile segment of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (Interstate 278 (I-278)) connecting Queens and Kings counties in New York, is proposed the existing structure extends from Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn to the Long Island Expressway interchange in Queens, carrying I-278 traffic over Newtown Creek. I-278 serves high volumes of commuter and local traffic as well as a significant amount of truck traffic, which is prohibited from use neighboring parkways. The existing bridge suffers from insufficient capacity as well as safety and structural deficiencies. Over the past two decades, the New York Department of Transportation has spent considerable time and effort maintaining the bridge in safe working order, resulting in both significant expenditures and periodic disruption to traffic flow. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives include two alternatives that would rehabilitate the existing bridge combined with construction of a new, parallel bridge either east or west of the existing structure, two alternatives that would replace the existing bridge with new parallel bridges running along both sides of the existing structure, and one alternative that would replace the existing bridge with two parallel structures that would run along the eastbound side of the existing bridge. The latter alternative (Alternative BR-5) has been selected as the preferred alternative. The two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing structure, as well as provision of a new structure, would be implemented such that the parallel bridge would be completed prior to rehabilitation of the existing structure to maintain six lanes of traffic across the creek and would require the construction of a temporary bridge over Laurel Hill Boulevard between 54th Avenue and 55th Avenue. The three alternatives that involve full replacement of the bridge would provide for a total of six lanes of traffic to cross the creek during demolition and construction activities. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion in 2005/2006 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing a safer crossing that would be easier and more economical to maintain, any of the build alternatives would increase bridge capacity and access to and from the bridge from Brooklyn and Queens arterials. Travelers using intersections in the vicinity of the bridge approaches would also benefit from increase efficiency and capacity. The build alternatives would employ 11,000 to 16,000 workers during construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require removal of Sergeant William Dougherty Playground in Brooklyn, but this community recreational facility would be replaced. The rehabilitation alternatives would have only a moderate impact on the Old Calvary Cemetery viewshed, but the full replacement alternatives would have more significant visual impacts on the cemetery. From 15 to 30 businesses would be displaced and, under the alternative providing dual parallel bridges on the eastbound side of the existing bridge, three residential units would be displaced. Demolition of the bridge would remove a structure potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 444 to 474 sensitive receptor sites in the vicinity of the bridge approaches on both sides of the creek. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. Dredging within Newton Creek and work along the creek's banks would affect water quality temporarily and alter channel hydrology somewhat. 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.), Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080517, 988 pages and maps, CD-ROMs (3, December 10, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety Analyses KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - New York KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Funding KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 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/36346476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=KOSCIUSZKO+BRIDGE+PROJECT%2C+ROUTE+I-278%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126068; 13759-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126061; 13759-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126057; 13759-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873126050; 13759-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873126050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125528; 13759-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125525; 13759-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 873125517; 13759-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/873125517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 10 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756825849; 13763-080511_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 8 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756825818; 13763-080511_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 6 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756825792; 13763-080511_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 5 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756825772; 13763-080511_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 3 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756825226; 13763-080511_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756825121; 13761-080509_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 4 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824964; 13763-080511_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 11 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824912; 13763-080511_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 7 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824903; 13763-080511_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 2 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824874; 13763-080511_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756824788; 13761-080509_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 756824779; 13761-080509_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 1 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824719; 13763-080511_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 9 of 11] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756824662; 13763-080511_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 36344525; 13763 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-Class. carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been homeported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-Class. carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This final supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with homeporting three Nimitz-Class. aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increase traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred Alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the homeporting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards . Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080511, Final Supplemental EIS--98 pages, Appendices A through I--1,422 pages, Appendices J through M--577 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, DIVIDE, WILLIAMS, BURKE, RENVILLE, BOTTINEAU, PIERCE, MCHENRY, WARD, MOUNTRAIL, AND MCLEAN COUNTIES, NORTH DAKOTA. AN - 16387033; 13761 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a special water treatment plant (WTP) In association with a pipeline system being constructed to transport water from Lake Sakakawea 45 miles northward to a regional distribution facility in the City of Minot in North Dakota is proposed to resolve a potential problem related to the transportation of invasive aquatic species. The pipeline would resolve regional water supply shortages in the northwestern section of the state. For many years, residents of northwestern North Dakota have experienced water supply problems. Lake Sakakawea, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir impounded by the Garrison Dam on the Missouri River, would provide 15,000 acre-feet of water annually. The most salient environmental issue identified during scoping concerns the movement of water from the Missouri River drainage area to the Hudson Bay drainage, potentially resulting in the transfer of invasive aquatic species between basins. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) conducted an analysis of this potential, resulting in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Construction on the main water pipeline began in the spring of 2002. In October of 2002, the Canadian Province of Manitoba filed a lawsuit challenging the FONSI. A February 2005 court order directed Reclamation to revisit the FONSI after further environmental analysis, particularly with respect to potential impacts due to failure to fully treat the water at its Missouri River source and possible pipeline leaks and treatment system failures. This Final EIS evaluates three WTP alternatives, described in the draft EIS, that would further reduce the risk of transferring invasive species a cross drainage; the EIS also addresses a No Action Alternative. Other key issues addressed in the EIS process are those related to impacts on federally protected species, historic properties, Indian trust assets, social and economic conditions, and environmental justice. The proposed water treatment plant would be situated on a 41-acre site south of the drainage divide separating the Missouri and Hudson Bay basins in McLean County. Each of the project alternatives assumes that the existing Minot water treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded to a treatment capacity of 26 million gallons per day. The Basic Treatment Alternative would include pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation), followed by chemical and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Conventional Treatment Alternative would include a pre-treatment process using dissolved air flotation followed by media filtration and disinfection using UV and chemicals. The Microfiltration Alternative would include pre-treatment via coagulation and flocculation followed by membrane filtration and chemical and UV disinfection. Costs of construction for the Basic Treatment, Conventional Treatment, and Microfiltration alternatives are estimated at $70 million, $76 million, and $92 million, respectively. Respective annual operation and maintenance costs for the three alternatives are $1.9 million, $1.9 million, and $2.2 million. The preferred Alternative, as identified in this final EIS, is a combination of the treatment proposals outlined above. This combination of treatment processes would include the chemical disinfection process as part of the No Action Alternative and the UV disinfection processes evaluated as part of the action alternatives. This alterative would provide for control of invasive species by incorporating 3- and 4-log inactivation of target organisms. Cost of the preferred Alternative is estimated at $17.5 million; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $306,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The WTP would ensure that the water delivered to northwestern North Dakota would be clear of biota of any kind, precluding the possibility of the introduction of invasive aquatic biota into the Hudson Bay drainage. The new source of water in the northwestern portion of the state would support a high quality of life and boost economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Other than disturbances at the Minot and McLean County WTP sites, resulting in the loss of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat at the latter site, the project would have no significant impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 and Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0105D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080509, Final EIS--98 pages, Appendices--379 pages, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 07-63 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Foreign Policies KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Water Treatment KW - North Dakota KW - Boundary Waters Treaty, Compliance KW - Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, Project Authorization KW - Garrison Division Unit Reformulation Act of 1960, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NORTHWEST+AREA+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+DIVIDE%2C+WILLIAMS%2C+BURKE%2C+RENVILLE%2C+BOTTINEAU%2C+PIERCE%2C+MCHENRY%2C+WARD%2C+MOUNTRAIL%2C+AND+MCLEAN+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 76, MELROSE TO SOUTH MISSION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. AN - 16378738; 13759 AB - PURPOSE: The widening and realignment of 5.8 miles of State Route (SR) 76 from Melrose Drive in Oceanside to South Mission Road in Bosnall, all in northern San Diego County, California are proposed. The existing facility is being taxed due to increased population growth regionally, increased intra- and inter-regional and Corridor traffic demand, and the development of land within the project area. The safety record of the facility has been in decline for quite some time. Two alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The alignment alternatives include widening of SR 76 on the existing alignment or widening the facility on an alignment south of the existing alignment. Both alternatives would provide a conventional four-lane highway with rights-of-way and grading to accommodate a future widening of the facility when justified. Both alignment alternatives are nearly identical between Melrose River and East Vista Way, but diverge to opposite sides of the San Luis Rey River as they progress east of East Vista Way. The preferred Alternative has been identified as reconstruction of the facility on the existing alignment. This would avoid substantial adverse impacts to the San Luis Rey Downs Golf Course, including direct impacts to the clubhouse, as well a significant encroachments into the San Luis Rey River floodplain and associated wetlands, riparian vegetation, and riparian wildlife that would occur under the southern alignment Alternative. Costs of the preferred Alternative and the southern alignment Alternative are estimated at $244 million and $395 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvement of SR 76 would increase the facility's capacity and enhance safety within the Corridor and allow for the accommodation of future capacity expansion. Travel times and other aspects of level of service within the Corridor would be maintained or improved. The new facility would be compatible with future transit and other modal options. The project would be consistent with the regional transportation plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 163 acres of rights-of-way for the preferred Alternative would require relocation of three homes and eight businesses and the Bonsall Model Airplane Site as well as 12 acres of a planned park site. The project would displace 20.2 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 0.9 acre of disturbed wetland, 6.28 acres of southern coast riparian forest, 0.31 acre of southern willow scrub, 1.1 acres of muleflat scrub, 0.56 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.07 acre of emergent wetland. Construction activities would temporarily impact 14.9 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, 1.5 acres of disturbed wetlands, 0.78 acres of southern coast live riparian forest, 0.05 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.22 acre of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and 0.19 of emergent wetlands. Permanent impacts would occur to 31.8 acres of jurisdictional waters of the states, while temporary impacts would affect 21.7 acres of jurisdictional waters. With respect to federally protected species, the project would impact three locations where arroyo toad breeding populations have been documented, 6.41 acres of California gnatcatcher, three or four pairs of leaf Bell's vireo , 19.7 acres of southwestern willow flycatcher critical habitat. Planned and existing trails would require relocation. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 13 sensitive noise receptors, and the visual aesthetics of the relatively rural area would be degraded significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0475D, Volume 31, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 080507, Final EIS--399 pages and maps, Appendices--327 pages and maps, December 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/16378738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+76%2C+MELROSE+TO+SOUTH+MISSION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA%3A+HIGHWAY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 4 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825986; 13720-080367_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 1 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825971; 13720-080367_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825912; 13754-080502_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825895; 13754-080502_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825277; 13756-080504_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 20 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825269; 13720-080367_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 19 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825267; 13720-080367_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 18 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825265; 13720-080367_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 17 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825262; 13720-080367_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 16 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825259; 13720-080367_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 14 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825256; 13720-080367_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 13 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825252; 13720-080367_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 10 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825249; 13720-080367_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 6 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825245; 13720-080367_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825233; 13754-080502_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825182; 13756-080504_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825178; 13756-080504_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 15 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825168; 13720-080367_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 12 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825161; 13720-080367_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 11 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825156; 13720-080367_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 3 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825154; 13720-080367_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 9 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825150; 13720-080367_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 8 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756825142; 13720-080367_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756825142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825107; 13756-080504_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756825100; 13756-080504_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825069; 13754-080502_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756825059; 13754-080502_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 2 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824991; 13720-080367_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756824991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 756824989; 13756-080504_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824940; 13754-080502_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 7 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824843; 13720-080367_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756824843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). [Part 5 of 20] T2 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 756824827; 13720-080367_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/756824827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824705; 13754-080502_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 756824677; 13754-080502_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824677?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR, SALT LAKE AND UTAH COUNTIES, UTAH (RECORD OF DECISION). AN - 36344182; 13720 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of roadway and transit facilities within the Mountain View Corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties, Utah is proposed. The Corridor improvements would address transportation needs in western Salt Lake County south of Interstate 80 (I-80) and west of Bangerter Highway and in northwestern Utah County west of I-15, south of the Salt Lake County line and north of Utah Lake. Western Salt Lake County and northwestern Utah County lack adequate north-south transportation capacity. Increased travel time in these areas has result in a loss of productivity. The area offers no rapid public transit options. Two roadway alternatives are considered for the Salt Lake County portion of the Corridor, each of which could include a proposed transit facility along 5600 West. In Utah County, three alternatives are under consideration. All five action alternatives would involve the construction of a freeway segments. Under the dedicated rights-of-way transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, 24 miles of dedicated transit rights-of-way would be established in the center of the roadway cross-section; 16 transit stations would be located in the roadway median. Under the mixed-traffic transit option associated with the Salt Lake County Alternative, transit vehicles would share the outside lanes of 5600 West with street traffic in each direction of travel. At station locations, transit vehicles would exit the shared lane to the right, then merge back into the shared lane after leaving the station; 25 stations would provide access to transit vehicles. Two freeway alternatives and one arterial Alternative are considered in Utah County. Each roadway Alternative in Utah County would be matched with any roadway alterative in Salt Lake County to provide a complete vehicular transportation system. In addition to the action alternatives, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. A attachment to the draft EIS, published subsequent to the draft but indicating the same publication date, presents an appendix covering property displacement impacts of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve regional mobility by reducing roadway congestion and by supporting increased transit availability. Local growth objectives would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way for the Salt Lake County component of the project would displace 1,562 acres to 1,958 acres of land, including 22 to 30 acres of prime farmland, as well as 207 to 263 residences, land within two recreation areas, six to eight community facilities, portions of four to five existing and 50 to 56 proposed trails, and 7 to 30 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect six to 12 archaeological sites and five to 11 historic sites. The facility would traverse 19 streams and 43 to 49 hazardous waste sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 446 to 739 sensitive receptors. Rights-of-way for the Utah County component of the project would displace 709 acres to 899 acres of land, including 97 to 149 acres of prime farmland, as well as 32 to 138 residences, land within up to two recreation areas, up to one community facility, portions of one to four existing and six to 13 proposed trails, and 15 to 78 acres of wetlands. The Alternative would affect three to seven archaeological sites and three to five historic sites. The facility would traverse 12 streams and four to six hazardous waste sites. The habitat of one federally protected orchid species would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards 134 to 226 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0480D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0465F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080367, 147 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-07-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah 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/36344182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&rft.title=MOUNTAIN+VIEW+CORRIDOR%2C+SALT+LAKE+AND+UTAH+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28RECORD+OF+DECISION%29.&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 (APPENDIX 6A: PROPERTY IMPACTS; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16387924; 13754 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of the Link light rail transit (LRT) system is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT system would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend the system east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. Local, regional, and state agencies have been studying high-capacity transportation alternatives to connect Seattle and the Eastside of King County since the mid-1960s. In 2004, The Puget Sound Regional Council published a report establishing a basis for a cross-lake Corridor, connecting the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Today, much of the Central Link is complete, and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is moving forward with the next phase, the East Link proposed here. Alternatives are considered for five Corridor segments in this draft EIS. Segment A, which runs along Interstate 90 (I-90), would connect downtown Seattle to Mercer Island and South Bellevue. Segment B would connect I-90 to Southeast Sixth Street along one of three corridors, namely Bellevue Way, 112th Avenue Southeast, or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights-of-way. Segment C would extend through downtown Bellevue between Northeast Sixth Street and an I-405 crossing at either NE Sixth Street of Northeast 12th Street on either an at-grade or elevated or tunnel profile. Segment D would extend from the I-405 crossing to the Overlake Transit Center, either through the Bel-Red Corridor or along State Route (SR) 520. Segment E would extend from Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond via the SR 520 Corridor to the West Lake Sammamish Parkway, then proceed through downtown Redmond via either Redmond Way or the BNSF Railway Corridor. Alternatives considered include a No-Build Alternative, one Alternative for Segment A, five alternatives for Segment B, six alternatives for Segment C, four alternatives for Segment D, three alternatives for Segment E, and four maintenance facility site alternatives. Access to the East Link system would be provided via 10 to 13 stations. Interim termini could occur at the east end of Segment C or any station in segments D or E. Construction would begin in 2013, with operation underway between 2020 and 2021. The project could be implemented in phases, depending on available funding and other factors. Any station beyond the last station along Segment C could be considered an interim station. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeologic sites. The transit facilities would significant alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors. Utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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: 080502, Executive Summary--57 pages, Draft EIS--651 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPARROWS POINT LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT (DOCKET NOS. CP07-62-000, CP07-63-000, CP07-64-000, CP07-65-000), BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 16387013; 13756 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, including an LNG ship berth and unloading facilities, on Sparrows Point in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed, along with associated regional pipeline facilities. The terminal would be constructed, owned, and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, LLC. terminal would include a ship unloading facility with two berths, capable of receiving LNG ships with capacities up to 217,000 cubic (cm); three 160,000-cm (net capacity) full-containment LNG storage tanks, each comprised comprised of a nine-percent nickel inner, a pre-stressed concrete outer tank, and a concrete roof; a closed-loop shell and tube heat vaporization system; a 118-acre berthing area dredged to a depth of 45 feet; and various ancillary facilities, including administrative offices, warehouse, main control room, security building, and platform control room. The terminal would be capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 480,000 cm of LNG (10.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent), vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a baseload rate of 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd). Mid-Atlantic Express would interconnect the terminal with three interstate natural gas pipeline systems. The pipeline connection would consist of 88 miles of 30-inch natural gas pipeline, including 48 miles in Maryland and 40 miles in Pennsylvania, a pig launcher and receiver facility at each termini of the pipeline, nine mainline valves, and three meter regulation stations, one at each of three interconnections at the end of the pipeline. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponement of the proposed action, Alternative LNG terminal sites, and Alternative pipeline routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities necessary to import, store, and vaporize an average of 1.5 billion Bcfd of liquefied natural gas to provide a competitive supply of natural gas to local industrial customers and other energy-consuming customers in Texas, and deliver natural gas to existing interstate natural gas pipelines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 1,801.4 acres would be disturbed during construction activities. Terminal construction would require dredging of 3.7 million cubic yards of sediment; subsequent maintenance dredging would require the dredging of 500,000 cubic yards of sediment every six years. Releases of sediments into the Patapsco River during dredging operations would degrade water quality and dredging would disturb benthic habitat and destroy sessile benthos. The terminal would lie within an area affected by ozone and particulate levels in excess of federal air quality standard thresholds. Pipeline construction would affect 177 surface waterbodies and 19.4 acres of wetlands and permanently convert 4.5 acres of forested wetlands to scrub/shrub wetlands. The pipeline would cross within 50 feet of 179 residences and 46 other buildings. Pipeline construction could affect wells and septic systems. The project would affect five aboveground architectural sites, three of which could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The pipeline would affect 10 archaeological sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the register. Construction workers would encounter contaminated soils at the terminal site. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (47 U.S.C. 701), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0147D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080504, Volume 1--951 pages, Volume 2--1,008 pages, December 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0222F KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Dredging KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sewage Disposal KW - Site Planning KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Patapsco KW - Maryland KW - Pennsylvania KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 2002, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=SPARROWS+POINT+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP07-62-000%2C+CP07-63-000%2C+CP07-64-000%2C+CP07-65-000%29%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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 - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Hydrographs from Stopped-Clock Data T2 - Fourth International Conference on Forensic Engineering AN - 41663154; 4994403 JF - Fourth International Conference on Forensic Engineering AU - Abraham, David Y1 - 2008/12/03/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Dec 03 KW - Data processing KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41663154?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=Fourth+International+Conference+on+Forensic+Engineering&rft.atitle=Hydrographs+from+Stopped-Clock+Data&rft.au=Abraham%2C+David&rft.aulast=Abraham&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2008-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Fourth+International+Conference+on+Forensic+Engineering&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.forensicengineering2008.com/Forensic_program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-17 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quantifying barrier island overwash through sedimentological, geophysical, and geospatial analyses; Onslow Beach, NC AN - 855194151; 2011-023207 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Foxgrover, A C AU - McNinch, Jesse E AU - Wadman, H M AU - Rodriguez, A B AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - December 2008 SP - Abstract OS23A EP - 1235 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 89 IS - 53, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - sand KW - high-resolution methods KW - barrier islands KW - Onslow County North Carolina KW - Onslow Beach KW - erosion KW - clastic sediments KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - sedimentation KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - radar methods KW - cores KW - beaches KW - sea-level changes KW - quantitative analysis KW - North Carolina KW - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterways KW - sediments KW - data bases KW - littoral erosion KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855194151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Quantifying+barrier+island+overwash+through+sedimentological%2C+geophysical%2C+and+geospatial+analyses%3B+Onslow+Beach%2C+NC&rft.au=Foxgrover%2C+A+C%3BMcNinch%2C+Jesse+E%3BWadman%2C+H+M%3BRodriguez%2C+A+B%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Foxgrover&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=53%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Eos%2C+Transactions%2C+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=00963941&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - American Geophysical Union 2008 fall meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Intracoastal Waterways; barrier islands; beaches; clastic sediments; cores; data bases; data processing; erosion; geophysical methods; ground-penetrating radar; high-resolution methods; littoral erosion; North Carolina; Onslow Beach; Onslow County North Carolina; quantitative analysis; radar methods; sand; sea-level changes; sedimentation; sediments; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects, uptake, and fate of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene aged in soil in plants and worms. AN - 66685270; 18620472 AB - The present study was aimed at providing data to be used at predicting exposure-based effects of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) aged in soil on endpoint organisms representing two trophic levels. These data can be used to define criteria or reference values for environmental management and conducting specific risk assessment. Long-term exposure tests were conducted to evaluate sublethal toxicity and uptake of aged soil-based explosives, with TNT as the main contaminant. In these tests, plants were exposed for 55 d, and biomass and explosives residues were determined. Worms were exposed for 28 and 42 d, and biomass, number, and tissue residues were determined. Biomass of Lolium perenne significantly decreased with soil-TNT concentration, and an effective concentration causing a 20% decrease in biomass (EC20) for TNT metabolites of 3.75 mg/kg was calculated. The concentrations of TNT metabolites in shoots and roots were significantly related to concentrations in soil, as were concentrations of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5 triazine (RDX) and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX). The mean bioconcentration factors, indicating the potential of a chemical to accumulate in an organism, were 0.9 for TNT metabolites, 71.8 for RDX, and 12.2 for HMX in L. perenne shoots. Biomass of Eisenia fetida adults significantly decreased with soil-TNT concentration, and an EC20 for TNT of 3.70 mg/kg was calculated. The TNT, RDX, and HMX levels in E. fetida were below detection. JF - Environmental toxicology and chemistry AU - Best, Elly P H AU - Tatem, Henry E AU - Geter, Kaaren N AU - Wells, Melissa L AU - Lane, Brian K AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA. elly.p.best@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - December 2008 SP - 2539 EP - 2547 VL - 27 IS - 12 SN - 0730-7268, 0730-7268 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Trinitrotoluene KW - 118-96-7 KW - Index Medicus KW - Animals KW - Biological Availability KW - Soil Pollutants -- toxicity KW - Oligochaeta -- metabolism KW - Soil Pollutants -- metabolism KW - Medicago -- metabolism KW - Trinitrotoluene -- analysis KW - Trinitrotoluene -- toxicity KW - Trinitrotoluene -- metabolism KW - Soil Pollutants -- analysis KW - Lolium -- metabolism UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66685270?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.atitle=Effects%2C+uptake%2C+and+fate+of+2%2C4%2C6-trinitrotoluene+aged+in+soil+in+plants+and+worms.&rft.au=Best%2C+Elly+P+H%3BTatem%2C+Henry+E%3BGeter%2C+Kaaren+N%3BWells%2C+Melissa+L%3BLane%2C+Brian+K&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=Elly+P&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2539&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.issn=07307268&rft_id=info:doi/10.1897%2F08-017.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-03-06 N1 - Date created - 2009-02-16 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/08-017.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Natural Cycles and Transfer of Mercury Through Pacific Coastal Marsh Vegetation Dominated by Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica AN - 20603924; 9321600 AB - The potential for marsh plants to be vectors in the transport of mercury species was studied in the natural, mature, tidal China Camp salt marsh on San Pablo Bay. The fluxes of organic matter, mercury (THg), and monomethylmercury (MeHg) were studied in natural stands of Spartina foliosa and Salicornia virginica. Seasonal fluxes from the sediment into aboveground biomass of live plants and subsequent transfer into the dead plant community by mortality were measured. Loss of THg and MeHg from the dead plant community through fragmentation, leaching, and excretion were calculated and were similar to net uptake. Seasonal data were added up to calculate annual mass balances. In S. foliosa, annual net production was 1,757 g DW m super(-2), and the annual net uptakes in the aboveground biomass were 305 [mu]g THg m super(-2) and 5.720 [mu]g MeHg m super(-2). In S. virginica, annual net production was 2,117 g DW m super(-2), and the annual net uptakes in aboveground biomass were 99.120 [mu]g THg m super(-2) and 1.990 [mu]g MeHg m super(-2). Of both plant species studied, S. foliosa had a slightly lower production rate but greater mercury species uptake and loss rates than S. virginica, and, consequently, it is to be expected that S. foliosa matter may affect the local and possibly the regional food web relatively more than S. virginica. However, the actual effects of the input of mercury-species-containing plant-derived particulate matter into the food webs would depend on trophic level, food preference, seasonal cycle of the consumer, total sediment surface area vegetated, location of the vegetation in the marsh landscape, and estuary bay landscape. Since the levels of mercury species in dead plant material greatly exceed those in live plant material (on a dry weight basis), detritivores would ingest greater mercury species concentrations than herbivores, and consumers of S. foliosa would ingest more than consumers of S. virginica. The greatest THg and MeHg losses of both plant species due to mortality and to fragmentation-leaching-excretion occurred in late spring and early autumn, which corresponds to peak MeHg levels observed in sediments of coastal systems of previous studies, suggesting enhanced THg-MeHg export from the marsh to the nearshore sediment. JF - Estuaries and Coasts AU - Best, Elly PH AU - Hintelmann, Holger AU - Dimock, Brian AU - Bednar, Anthony J AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, elly.p.best@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - December 2008 SP - 1072 EP - 1088 PB - Estuarine Research Federation, 490 Chippingwood Dr. No. 2 Port Republic MD 20676-2140 USA VL - 31 IS - 6 SN - 1559-2723, 1559-2723 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Mercury KW - Monomethylmercury KW - Salt marsh KW - Estuarine KW - Spartina KW - Salicornia KW - Food Chains KW - Absorption KW - Consumers KW - Seasonal variations KW - Salicornia virginica KW - Spartina foliosa KW - Landscape KW - Estuaries KW - Aquatic plants KW - Vegetation KW - Biomass KW - Trophic levels KW - plant communities KW - Plant communities KW - Excretion KW - surface area KW - Particulates KW - Sulfur dioxide KW - Sediment transport KW - Plant populations KW - food webs KW - Food webs KW - Sediment pollution KW - Mortality KW - herbivores KW - Leaching KW - INE, USA, California, San Pablo Bay KW - Marshes KW - Sediments KW - Plant Populations KW - Salt marshes KW - Plants KW - Mortality causes KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - Q1 08442:Population dynamics KW - Q2 09261:General KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality KW - O 4060:Pollution - Environment UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20603924?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Estuaries+and+Coasts&rft.atitle=Natural+Cycles+and+Transfer+of+Mercury+Through+Pacific+Coastal+Marsh+Vegetation+Dominated+by+Spartina+foliosa+and+Salicornia+virginica&rft.au=Best%2C+Elly+PH%3BHintelmann%2C+Holger%3BDimock%2C+Brian%3BBednar%2C+Anthony+J&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=Elly&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1072&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Estuaries+and+Coasts&rft.issn=15592723&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs12237-008-9086-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Salt marshes; Aquatic plants; Mercury; Sediment transport; Consumers; Marshes; Plant populations; Food webs; Mortality causes; Mortality; Plant communities; Vegetation; Biomass; Sediments; Sediment pollution; herbivores; Leaching; Estuaries; Landscape; Particulates; Trophic levels; Sulfur dioxide; plant communities; Plants; Excretion; Seasonal variations; food webs; surface area; Plant Populations; Food Chains; Absorption; Spartina; Spartina foliosa; Salicornia virginica; INE, USA, California, San Pablo Bay DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9086-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dredging impacts on sea turtles in the southeastern USA: A historical review of protection AN - 20492756; 9187921 AB - Hopper dredging along the southeastern USA potentially impacts five species of threatened or endangered sea turtles. Documented incidental takes of loggerhead, green and Kemps ridley sea turtles have occurred during dredging since 1980 in 38 coastal channels from the Texas-Mexico border through New York. Over the past 24 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and dredging industry have worked to develop protocols, operational methods and modified dredging equipment to reduce dredging impacts to sea turtles. The success of these protection efforts is illustrated in the reductions in incidental takes compared to the increasing number of dredged channels monitored. JF - NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS SEFSC AU - Dickerson, D D AU - Wolters AU - Theriot, C T AD - USACE Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA A2 - Kalb, Heather A2 - Rohde, Alexandra S A2 - Gayheart, Kacie A2 - Shanker, Kartik Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 26 PB - National Marine Fisheries Service - SEFSC, Miami Laboratory - Sea Turtle Program 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami FL 33149 USA IS - 582 KW - Sea turtles KW - Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - NMFS-SEFSC-582 KW - Marine KW - ANW, USA, New York KW - By catch KW - Behaviour KW - Aquatic reptiles KW - Nature conservation KW - Dredging KW - Coastal inlets KW - Rare species KW - Cheloniidae KW - Ecosystem disturbance KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - O 4090:Conservation and Environmental Protection KW - Q1 08423:Behaviour UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20492756?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=NOAA+Technical+Memorandum+NMFS+SEFSC&rft.atitle=Dredging+impacts+on+sea+turtles+in+the+southeastern+USA%3A+A+historical+review+of+protection&rft.au=Dickerson%2C+D+D%3BWolters%3BTheriot%2C+C+T&rft.aulast=Dickerson&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=582&rft.spage=26&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=NOAA+Technical+Memorandum+NMFS+SEFSC&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - By catch; Aquatic reptiles; Behaviour; Nature conservation; Dredging; Coastal inlets; Rare species; Ecosystem disturbance; Cheloniidae; ANW, USA, New York; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Improved procedure for correlating blast noise events with complaint logs at U.S. Army installations AN - 20398179; 9069544 AB - Regulations require Army installations to log and investigate complaints about the noise of military training and operations. A number of Army installations have sought to improve the investigation of complaints by installing monitors specifically designed for measuring impulsive sounds, but the relationship between measured impulse sound levels and noise complaints remains ill-defined. A previous analysis sought to define this relationship but was unable to find corresponding noise measurements for approximately one-third of the complaints. A new study, conducted at the same military installation, has made several technical improvements that have increased the correspondence between noise measurements and complaints. This paper describes the improvements and compares initial findings on the relationship between complaints and blast levels to work previously done. This article is a government work and as such, is in the public domain and not subject to copyright. JF - Noise Control Engineering Journal AU - Nykaza, E T AU - Pater, L L AU - Luz, G A AD - U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, P.O. Box 9005, Champaign IL 61826, USA, Edward.T.Nykaza@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 451 EP - 459 VL - 56 IS - 6 SN - 0736-2501, 0736-2501 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - USA KW - Training KW - Noise levels KW - Military KW - P 7000:NOISE UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20398179?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Noise+Control+Engineering+Journal&rft.atitle=Improved+procedure+for+correlating+blast+noise+events+with+complaint+logs+at+U.S.+Army+installations&rft.au=Nykaza%2C+E+T%3BPater%2C+L+L%3BLuz%2C+G+A&rft.aulast=Nykaza&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=451&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Noise+Control+Engineering+Journal&rft.issn=07362501&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Training; Noise levels; Military; USA ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NASA Cold Land Processes Experiment (CLPX 2002/03): Spaceborne Remote Sensing AN - 20386359; 9064499 AB - This paper describes satellite data collected as part of the 2002/03 Cold Land Processes Experiment (CLPX). These data include multispectral and hyperspectral optical imaging, and passive and active microwave observations of the test areas. The CLPX multispectral optical data include the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), the Landsat Thematic Mapper/Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (TM/ETM+), the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and the Multi-angle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR). The spaceborne hyperspectral optical data consist of measurements acquired with the NASA Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) Hyperion imaging spectrometer. The passive microwave data include observations from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR) for Earth Observing System (EOS; AMSR-E). Observations from the Radarsat synthetic aperture radar and the SeaWinds scatterometer flown on QuikSCAT make up the active microwave data. JF - Journal of Hydrometeorology AU - Davis, R E AU - Painter, TH AU - Cline, D AU - Armstrong, R AU - Haran, T AU - McDonald, K AU - Forster, R AU - Elder, K AD - Corresponding author address: Robert Davis, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, USACE, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290. robert.e, davis@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 1427 EP - 1433 PB - American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon St. Boston MA 02108-3693 USA VL - 9 IS - 6 SN - 1525-755X, 1525-755X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Remote Sensing KW - Testing Procedures KW - Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) KW - Satellite Technology KW - Meteorological data KW - Sensors KW - Remote sensing KW - LANDSAT KW - Hydrometeorology KW - Radiometers KW - Satellite data KW - Hydrometeorological research KW - Microwaves KW - Synthetic aperture radar KW - Radar KW - AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) KW - MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer) KW - Spectrometers KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - M2 551.579.1:Water supply from precipitation (551.579.1) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20386359?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.atitle=NASA+Cold+Land+Processes+Experiment+%28CLPX+2002%2F03%29%3A+Spaceborne+Remote+Sensing&rft.au=Davis%2C+R+E%3BPainter%2C+TH%3BCline%2C+D%3BArmstrong%2C+R%3BHaran%2C+T%3BMcDonald%2C+K%3BForster%2C+R%3BElder%2C+K&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1427&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.issn=1525755X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F2008JHM926.1 L2 - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JHM926.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Radiometers; Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I); Meteorological data; Hydrometeorological research; Satellite data; Synthetic aperture radar; AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer); Remote sensing; MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer); LANDSAT; Testing Procedures; Hydrometeorology; Remote Sensing; Satellite Technology; Microwaves; Sensors; Radar; Spectrometers DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM926.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A Remote Sensing Survey of the Role of Landform on the Organization of Orographic Precipitation in Central and Southern Mexico AN - 20386305; 9064488 AB - Data from NASA's TRMM satellite and NOAA's GOES satellites were used to survey the orographic organization of cloud precipitation in central and southern Mexico during the monsoon with two main objectives: 1) to investigate large-scale forcing versus local landform controls, and 2) to compare the results with previous work in the Himalayas. At large scales, the modes of spatial variability of cloudiness were estimated using the empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of GOES brightness temperatures. Terrain modulation of synoptic-scale high-frequency variability (3-5- and 6-9-day cycles normally associated with the propagation of easterly waves) was found to cause higher dispersion in the EOF spectrum, with the first mode explaining less than 30% of the spatial variability in central and southern Mexico as opposed to 50% and higher in the Himalayas. A detailed analysis of the first three EOFs for 1999, an average La Nina year with above average rainfall, and for 2001, a weak La Nina year with below average rainfall, shows that landform (mountain peaks and land-ocean contrast) and large-scale circulation (moisture convergence) alternate as the key controls of regional hydrometeorology in dry and wet years, or as active and break (midsummer drought) phases of the monsoon, respectively. The diurnal cycle is the dominant time scale of variability in 2001, as it is during the midsummer drought in all years. Strong variability at time scales beyond two weeks is only present during the active phases of the monsoon. At the river basin scale, the data show increased cloudiness over the mountain ranges during the afternoon, which moves over the low-lying regions at the foot of the major orographic barriers [the Sierra Madre Occidental (SMO)/Sierra Madre del Sur (SMS) and Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB)], specifically the Balsas and the Rio de Santiago basins at nighttime and in the early morning. At the ridge-valley scale (6100-200 km), robust day-night (ridge-valley) asymmetries suggest strong local controls on cloud and precipitation, with convective activity along the coastal region of the SMO and topographically forced convection at the foothills of headwater ridges in the Altiplano and the SMS. These day-night spatial shifts in cloudiness and precipitation are similar to those found in the Himalayas at the same spatial scales. JF - Journal of Hydrometeorology AU - Giovannettone, J P AU - Barros, A P AD - Corresponding author address: Dr. Jason Giovannettone, Institute of Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 609 2nd Street, Davis, CA 95616. Jason.P, Giovannettone@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 1267 EP - 1283 PB - American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon St. Boston MA 02108-3693 USA VL - 9 IS - 6 SN - 1525-755X, 1525-755X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Remote Sensing KW - Variability KW - Chile, Rio Grande do Sul, Santiago KW - Rainfall KW - La Nina KW - Remote sensing KW - Pakistan, Himalayas KW - Wave dispersion KW - Convection development KW - Hydrometeorological analysis KW - Empirical orthogonal functions KW - Drought KW - U.S. satellite, NOAA KW - Convergence KW - Volcanic activity KW - Cloudiness KW - Spatial variability KW - Diurnal precipitation variations KW - Satellite Technology KW - Bolivia, Altiplano KW - Atmospheric circulation KW - River basins KW - Precipitation KW - GOES satellites KW - Orographic precipitation KW - Hydrometeorology KW - Easterly waves KW - Clouds KW - Hydrometeorological research KW - Mexico KW - Dry and wet years KW - Convective activity KW - Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) KW - Brightness temperature KW - Monsoons KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - M2 556.12:Precipitation (556.12) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20386305?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.atitle=A+Remote+Sensing+Survey+of+the+Role+of+Landform+on+the+Organization+of+Orographic+Precipitation+in+Central+and+Southern+Mexico&rft.au=Giovannettone%2C+J+P%3BBarros%2C+A+P&rft.aulast=Giovannettone&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1267&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.issn=1525755X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F2008JHM947.1 L2 - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JHM947.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - La Nina; Remote sensing; Wave dispersion; Empirical orthogonal functions; Hydrometeorological analysis; Convection development; Drought; U.S. satellite, NOAA; Volcanic activity; Convergence; Cloudiness; Diurnal precipitation variations; Spatial variability; River basins; Atmospheric circulation; Precipitation; GOES satellites; Orographic precipitation; Clouds; Easterly waves; Hydrometeorological research; Dry and wet years; Convective activity; Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM); Brightness temperature; Monsoons; Hydrometeorology; Remote Sensing; Satellite Technology; Variability; Rainfall; Mexico; Chile, Rio Grande do Sul, Santiago; Bolivia, Altiplano; Pakistan, Himalayas DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM947.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of FASST and SNTHERM in Three Snow Accumulation Regimes AN - 20386075; 9064501 AB - Numerical experiments of snow accumulation and depletion were carried out as well as surface energy fluxes over four Cold Land Processes Experiment (CLPX) sites in Colorado using the Snow Thermal model (SNTHERM) and the Fast All-Season Soil Strength model (FASST). SNTHERM is a multilayer snow model developed to describe changes in snow properties as a function of depth and time, using a one-dimensional mass and energy balance. The model is intended for seasonal snow covers and addresses conditions found throughout the winter, from initial ground freezing in the fall to snow ablation in the spring. It has been used by many researchers over a variety of terrains. FASST is a newly developed one-dimensional dynamic state-of-the-ground model. It calculates the ground's moisture content, ice content, temperature, and freeze-thaw profiles as well as soil strength and surface ice and snow accumulation/depletion. Because FASST is newer and not as well known, the authors wanted to determine its use as a snow model by comparing it with SNTHERM, one of the most established snow models available. It is demonstrated that even though FASST is only a single-layer snow model, the RMSE snow depth compared very favorably against SNTHERM, often performing better during the accumulation phase. The surface energy fluxes calculated by the two models were also compared and were found to be similar. JF - Journal of Hydrometeorology AU - Frankenstein, S AU - Sawyer, A AU - Koeberle, J AD - Corresponding author address: Susan Frankenstein, ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755. susan, frankenstein@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 1443 EP - 1463 PB - American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon St. Boston MA 02108-3693 USA VL - 9 IS - 6 SN - 1525-755X, 1525-755X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Snow KW - Depletion KW - Snow cover depth KW - Thermals models KW - Temperature KW - Numerical experiments KW - Snow accumulation KW - Snow cover KW - Model Studies KW - Hydrometeorology KW - USA, Colorado KW - Hydrometeorological research KW - Energy balance KW - Snow Accumulation KW - Accumulation KW - Ablation KW - Soil Strength KW - M2 551.324:Land Ice/Glaciers (551.324) KW - SW 0820:Snow, ice and frost UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20386075?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+FASST+and+SNTHERM+in+Three+Snow+Accumulation+Regimes&rft.au=Frankenstein%2C+S%3BSawyer%2C+A%3BKoeberle%2C+J&rft.aulast=Frankenstein&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1443&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.issn=1525755X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F2008JHM865.1 L2 - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JHM865.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hydrometeorological research; Energy balance; Snow cover depth; Thermals models; Numerical experiments; Snow accumulation; Snow cover; Hydrometeorology; Depletion; Snow; Temperature; Snow Accumulation; Accumulation; Ablation; Soil Strength; Model Studies; USA, Colorado DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM865.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - NASA Cold Land Processes Experiment (CLPX 2002/03): Local Scale Observation Site AN - 20383681; 9064500 AB - The local scale observation site (LSOS) is the smallest study site (0.8 ha) of the 2002/03 Cold Land Processes Experiment (CLPX) and is located within the Fraser mesocell study area. It was the most intensively measured site of the CLPX, and measurements here had the greatest temporal component of all CLPX sites. Measurements made at the LSOS were designed to produce a comprehensive assessment of the snow, soil, and vegetation characteristics viewed by the ground-based remote sensing instruments. The objective of the ground-based microwave remote sensing was to collect time series of active and passive microwave spectral signatures over snow, soil, and forest, which is coincident with the intensive physical characterization of these features. Ground-based remote sensing instruments included frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radars operating over multiple microwave bandwidths; the Ground-Based Microwave Radiometer (GBMR-7) operating at channels 18.7, 23.8, 36.5, and 89 GHz; and in 2003, an L-, C-, X- and Ku-band scatterometer radar system. Snow and soil measurements included standard snow physical properties, snow wetness, snow depth transects, and soil moisture. The stem and canopy temperature and xylem sap flux of several trees were monitored continuously. Five micrometeorological towers monitored ambient conditions and provided forcing datasets for 1D snow and soil models. Arrays of pyranometers (0.3-3 km) and a scanning thermal radiometer (8-12 km) characterized the variability of radiative receipt in the forests. A field spectroradiometer measured the hyperspectral hemispherical-directional reflectance of the snow surface. These measurements, together with the ground-based remote sensing, provide the framework for evaluating and improving microwave radiative transfer models and coupling them to land surface models. The dataset is archived at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. JF - Journal of Hydrometeorology AU - Hardy, J AU - Davis, R AU - Koh, Y AU - Cline, D AU - Elder, K AU - Armstrong, R AU - Marshall, H AU - Painter, T AU - Saint-Martin, G C AU - DeRoo, R AU - Sarabandi, K AU - Graf, T AU - Koike, T AU - McDonald, K AD - Corresponding author address: Janet P. Hardy, CRREL, Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755. janet.p, hardy@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - Dec 2008 SP - 1434 EP - 1442 PB - American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon St. Boston MA 02108-3693 USA VL - 9 IS - 6 SN - 1525-755X, 1525-755X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Remote Sensing KW - Reflectance KW - Snow cover depth KW - Pyranometers KW - Remote sensing KW - Time series analysis KW - Radiometers KW - Microwaves KW - Microwave radiative transfer KW - Assessments KW - Radiative transfer in snow KW - Snow KW - Snow and ice KW - Temperature KW - Vegetation KW - Data centers KW - Microwave radiometers KW - Model Studies KW - Channels KW - USA, Colorado KW - Hydrometeorological research KW - Forest canopy KW - Radar KW - Soil moisture KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - M2 556.14:Infiltration/Soil Moisture (556.14) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20383681?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.atitle=NASA+Cold+Land+Processes+Experiment+%28CLPX+2002%2F03%29%3A+Local+Scale+Observation+Site&rft.au=Hardy%2C+J%3BDavis%2C+R%3BKoh%2C+Y%3BCline%2C+D%3BElder%2C+K%3BArmstrong%2C+R%3BMarshall%2C+H%3BPainter%2C+T%3BSaint-Martin%2C+G+C%3BDeRoo%2C+R%3BSarabandi%2C+K%3BGraf%2C+T%3BKoike%2C+T%3BMcDonald%2C+K&rft.aulast=Hardy&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1434&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrometeorology&rft.issn=1525755X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F2008JHM875.1 L2 - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JHM875.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Reflectance; Snow cover depth; Pyranometers; Snow and ice; Remote sensing; Data centers; Time series analysis; Microwave radiometers; Radiometers; Hydrometeorological research; Microwave radiative transfer; Forest canopy; Radar; Radiative transfer in snow; Soil moisture; Channels; Remote Sensing; Microwaves; Assessments; Snow; Temperature; Vegetation; Model Studies; USA, Colorado DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JHM875.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The influence of wettability on NAPL dissolution fingering AN - 1112669197; 2012-090953 AB - Laboratory experiments and numerical simulations in homogeneous porous media were used to investigate the influence of porous medium wettability on the formation and growth of preferential dissolution pathways, dissolution fingers, during nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) dissolution. As the porous medium became increasingly NAPL-wet, dissolution fingers grew wider and slower. This result was observed in physical experiments with 0% and 100% NAPL-wet conditions and confirmed with numerical simulations at these and intermediate wettabilities. A previously derived expression for an upscaled mass transfer rate coefficient that accounts for the growth of dissolution fingers was used to quantify the effect of fingering on overall NAPL removal rates. For the test cases evaluated, NAPL dissolution fingering controlled the overall rate of NAPL dissolution after the dissolution front moved 4 cm in 0% NAPL-wet conditions and 18 cm in 100% NAPL-wet conditions. Thus, even in completely NAPL-wet media dissolution fingering may control the overall rate of NAPL dissolution after relatively short travel distances. The importance of NAPL dissolution fingering in heterogeneous systems with spatially varying NAPL saturations, though, remains an important question for future work. Abstract Copyright (2008) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Advances in Water Resources AU - Seyedabbasi, Mir Ahmad AU - Farthing, Matthew W AU - Imhoff, Paul T AU - Miller, Cass T Y1 - 2008/12// PY - 2008 DA - December 2008 SP - 1687 EP - 1696 PB - Elsevier, Oxford VL - 31 IS - 12 SN - 0309-1708, 0309-1708 KW - solute transport KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - preferential flow KW - simulation KW - laboratory studies KW - transport KW - sediments KW - interfaces KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - mass transfer KW - water pollution KW - sand KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - clastic sediments KW - solutes KW - pollution KW - porous materials KW - fingering KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - organic compounds KW - saturation KW - wettability KW - trichloroethylene KW - permeability KW - homogeneous materials KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112669197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.atitle=The+influence+of+wettability+on+NAPL+dissolution+fingering&rft.au=Seyedabbasi%2C+Mir+Ahmad%3BFarthing%2C+Matthew+W%3BImhoff%2C+Paul+T%3BMiller%2C+Cass+T&rft.aulast=Seyedabbasi&rft.aufirst=Mir&rft.date=2008-12-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1687&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Advances+in+Water+Resources&rft.issn=03091708&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.advwatres.2008.08.003 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091708 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 44 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - chlorinated hydrocarbons; clastic sediments; experimental studies; fingering; halogenated hydrocarbons; homogeneous materials; interfaces; laboratory studies; mass transfer; nonaqueous phase liquids; numerical models; organic compounds; permeability; pollution; porous materials; preferential flow; sand; saturation; sediments; simulation; solute transport; solutes; transport; trichloroethylene; water pollution; wettability DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.08.003 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 1 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824962; 13748-080496_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 2 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824773; 13748-080496_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 4 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824707; 13748-080496_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 5 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824702; 13748-080496_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). [Part 3 of 5] T2 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 756824696; 13748-080496_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RED DOG MINE EXTENSION, AQQALUK PROJECT, ALASKA DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF 1984). AN - 15222961; 13748 AB - PURPOSE: Extension of mining and related changes in mine operations at the Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of 1984 on the development of the mine. Since 1989, the Red Dog Mine has been an operating open-pit zinc and lead mine situated on private land owned by the NANA Regional Corporation 82 miles north of Kotzebuc. The mine is operated by Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated (Teck), the applicant for extension of the mine. In addition to the mine, the operation includes a mill for processing ore, a tailings impoundment, waste rock storage areas, and ancillary facilities. The processed lead and zinc ore concentrates are transported from the mine facilities via the 52-mile DeLong Mountain Regional Transportation System (DMTS) haul road to a DMTS port facility located on the Chukchi Sea. The main deposit at the Red Dog Mine is expected to be exhausted in 2011 or 2012. The applicant hereby proposes to begin mining in the adjacent Aqqaluk Deposit to ensure continued operations to 2031. In addition to the mine extension, the applicant would increase treatment of wastewater discharged during mining and milling. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality in Red Dog Creek and in downstream flows; the storage capacity and stability of the tailings impoundment; mine-related fugitive dust contamination of resources resulting from the continued operation of the DMTS; and the mine's impact on subsistence resources. Under the proposed action, Teck would begin stripping waste material overlying the Aqqaluk deposit in 2010. Mining operation in the existing Red Dog Mine main pit would be completed while developing the initial stages of the Aqqaluk deposit. After the main deposit was mined out, waste rock removed from the Aqqaluk deposit would be placed in the main pit. Ore from the Aqqaluk deposit would be processed in the existing mill and tailings would be deposited in the existing impoundment. The height of the tailings impoundment dike would be raised 16 feet to accommodate the additional tailings. Wastewater from the tailings impoundment would be treated via the existing high-density sludge processing installation to reduce metals concentrations, with additional treatment to reduce total dissolved solids levels in the discharge. Wastewater would continue to be discharged to Red Dog Creek. All other activities associated with the mine would continue until mine closure in 2031, when site reclamation would begin. At mine closure, the tailings impoundment would be managed to keep a shallow layer of water over the tailings. Seepage from mine facilities, including the waste rock dump and tailings impoundment, would be treated and discharged into Red Dog Creek. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), known as the Aqqaluk Project, this draft supplemental EIS considers the proposed action and three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would contribute significantly to meeting the demand for lead and zinc in the United States. The mine would continue to provide a substantial socioeconomic contribution to the region, resulting in significant direct and indirect employment and making extensive purchases on its own part. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining at the Aqqaluk extension would disturb 413 acres in addition to the 27 acres to be disturbed before the main pit is mined out. Continued mining within an enlarged tract would extend impacts on Native Alaskan subsistence prey, such as caribou. Failure of the tailings dam could result in exceedances of federal water quality standards in Red Dog Creek and downstream flows. Metal loadings from fugitive emissions would continue to affect the local geochemical regime. Fugitive emission s from the DMTS haul road would continue at current levels. Loss of permafrost and other localized impacts to groundwater resources would continue. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080496, Draft Supplemental EIS--544 pages, Appendices--231 pages, November 28, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transportation KW - Waste Management KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Red Dog Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15222961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.title=RED+DOG+MINE+EXTENSION%2C+AQQALUK+PROJECT%2C+ALASKA+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+1984%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824671; 13740-080488_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824647; 13740-080488_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 756824628; 13740-080488_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT RIVER INTERNATIONAL CROSSING, WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. AN - 36343228; 13740 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and associated infrastructure to provide for a connection between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario, Canada is proposed. The Detroit River International Crossing is the most used trade Corridor between the United States and Canada. The project would consist of a road connection from Interstate 75 (I-75) to a new U.S. Customs inspection plaza and a new bridge to Canada. The Ontario and federal governments of Canada are undertaking similar studies for the construction of the Canadian section of the bridge, the Canadian plaza and the Canadian connection to Highway 401, the freeway to Canada. This EIS process addressed only the U.S. project. Nine bridge build alternatives and six interchange alternatives, as well as a No Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The bridge alternatives would involve crossing the river at one of three locations. Two bridge design alternatives are considered, specifically, a cable-stay Alternative and a suspension Alternative. All piers supporting each of the three proposed bridges would e on land to avoid interference with navigation on the Detroit River. Depending on the Alternative considered, estimated U.S. cost of the build alternatives range from $1.847 billion to $1.5 billion. A preferred Alternative is identified. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing would provide for safe, efficient, and secure movement of people and goods across the Canadian border in the Detroit River area, supporting the economies of Michigan, Ontario, and Canada. The bridge would also support the mobility needs of national and civil defense interests with respect to the protection of the homeland. Increase long-term border-crossing capacity would be met. System connectivity would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would result in the displacement of 324 to 369 occupied residential units, four to 19 vacant residential units, and 43 to 56 occupied commercial units, 24 to 30 occupied commercial units. From 685 to 920 employees would be affected by commercial displacements. Other land affected would include two to four City government facilities, one or two state/federal government facilities, five to eight places of worship, and up to one medical facility. Normal traffic patterns would be disrupted due to interchange closures and the rerouting of three us lines, and two to four pedestrian crossings would be permanently removed. Socioeconomic impacts would disproportionately impact minorities and low-income residents in the study area. Three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. A small portion of wetland would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0203D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080488, 877 pages and maps, November 25, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MI-EIS-05-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Border Stations KW - Bridges KW - Community Facilities KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Environmental Justice KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Canada KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+RIVER+INTERNATIONAL+CROSSING%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 25, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 816527099; 14472-080483_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/816527099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 816527057; 14472-080483_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/816527057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 34 CORRIDOR, CARTER, REYNOLDS, WAYNE, BOLLINGER, AND CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 754909112; 14472 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to the transportation system in the vicinity of Route 34 in Carter, Reynolds, Wayne, Bollinger, and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri are proposed. The Route 34 facility was constructed from 1923 to 1933 with upgrades in the areas of the St. Francis River in 1966, Clark Creek in 1980, and Castor River in 1990. Roadway deficiencies currently contribute to above-average crash rates on various segments of the study area corridor. The project corridor is 85 miles in length and extends from the intersection of Routes 60/21 in Carter County, northerly along Route 21 to the intersection of Routes 21/34. It then extends easterly along Route 34 to the intersection of Routes 34/72 just west of Jackson in Cape Girardeau County. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit, upgrading and improving the existing roadways, and constructing a two-lane highway on new or partially-new location. Under the preferred alternative, approximately 96 percent of the project is proposed as an improved two-lane facility. A part of the section in the vicinity of Marble Hill in Bollinger County would be a three-lane facility and the section from Byrd Creek to the Routes 34/72 intersection in Cape Girardeau County would be a four-lane urban section incorporating a center turning lane. Estimated construction and right-of-way costs for the preferred alternative amount to $363.1 million in 2004 dollars. Project construction is not expected to begin for at least 10 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would reduce crashes, address deficiencies in roadway geometrics and bridges, and improve safety for the traveling public in the project area. Roadway and intersection improvements would relieve traffic congestion in Piedmont, west of Piedmont to Route 67, in Marble Hill, and west of Jackson. Transportation system linkage would be improved from Van Buren to Jackson by reducing system-wide vehicle hours traveled. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way for the project would require the acquisition of 1,233 acres and would cross 24 perennial streams and 38 intermittent streams. Construction of the preferred alternative would potentially impact 763.9 acres of forested lands and convert 221.5 acres of agricultural land. Habitat for Indiana bat, gray bat, two species of mussels, the blunt-scale bulrush, and netted chain fern would be potentially affected. Implementation would displace118 single-family residences, one multi-family residence, 27 mobile homes, and 21 commercial or industrial buildings. Six of 10 archaeological sites located within the preferred alternative corridor could be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 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: 080483, 181 pages and maps, November 21, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-05-01-F KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri 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/754909112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+34+CORRIDOR%2C+CARTER%2C+REYNOLDS%2C+WAYNE%2C+BOLLINGER%2C+AND+CAPE+GIRARDEAU+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 5] T2 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 816530753; 14467-080478_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816530753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816527027; 14468-080479_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/816527027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816527006; 14468-080479_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/816527006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526998; 14468-080479_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/816526998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 5] T2 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 816526985; 14467-080478_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 5] T2 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 816526979; 14467-080478_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 5] T2 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 816526977; 14467-080478_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 5] T2 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 816526972; 14467-080478_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526905; 14468-080479_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/816526905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 816526902; 14468-080479_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/816526902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENEVA ROAD, CENTER STREET/1600 WEST (PROVO) TO GENEVA ROAD/SR-89 (PLEASANT GROVE), UTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 754908382; 14468 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements to Geneva Road and a portion of Provo Center Street, both of which are part of SR-114 in Utah County, Utah are proposed. The project study area includes portions of Provo, Orem, Vineyard, Lindon, and unincorporated Utah County between I-15 on the east and Utah Lake on the west. Geneva Road is the only north-south arterial roadway west of I-15 and serves as the main transportation access for that area. Traffic volumes on many of the two and three-lane portions of Geneva Road currently meet or exceed the existing capacity of the roadway with traffic volumes projected to range from 13,000 to 38,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. Problems and concerns identified during scoping include heavy traffic levels on Geneva Road, difficult access from driveways and unsignalized intersections, lack of turn lanes and shoulders, the sharp curve at 400 North in Orem, lack of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and additional traffic on Geneva Road when I-15 is congested. Initial alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet or exceed Level of Service (LOS) D on Geneva Road in the year 2030 and for their ability to meet current design standards and to provide facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and other transit. A transportation system management alternative, a transit alternative, an improve other roadways alternative, and a build a new road at a new location alternative were all eliminated. A Combination of Lanes on Geneva Road Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two options were developed for the Combination of Lanes Alternative between 135 North and 1600 North in Orem, due to the uncertainty as to the future plans for the railroad tracks west of Geneva Road in this area. The preferred alternative would add travel lanes as required to meet LOS D in the year 2030, improve intersections to meet LOS D for peak hour conditions in 2030, improve the cross-section to meet or exceed minimum standards in most locations, and improve the horizontal alignment at 400 North in Orem to remove or alter the S-curve. Sidewalks, trails, and shoulders would be improved to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and pullouts for transit use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would improve regional and local traffic mobility for north-south travel and would increase safety by correcting design deficiencies. Opportunities for intermodal facilities on Geneva Road would be enhanced through provision of a consistent cross-section that would better accommodate mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, trails, and other alternative modes of travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would entail permanent loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Option one would potentially relocate 35 residences and seven businesses and option two would potentially relocate 35 residences and 22 businesses. Impervious area would increase from 65 acres to 95 acres and 0.88 acres of wetland would be impacted. Noise levels would increase by an average of two decibels. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080479, Volume 1-- 386 pages and maps, Volume 2-- oversized maps, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Utah 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/754908382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GENEVA+ROAD%2C+CENTER+STREET%2F1600+WEST+%28PROVO%29+TO+GENEVA+ROAD%2FSR-89+%28PLEASANT+GROVE%29%2C+UTAH+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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PACIFIC L.A. MARINE TERMINAL LLC, PIER 400, BERTH 408 PROJECT, LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 754907901; 14467 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a deep-draft crude oil marine terminal along with the associated tank farms and pipelines at piers 300 and 400, San Pedro Bay, Port of Los Angeles, California are proposed. The terminal would be operated by Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., under a 30-year lease from the Los Angeles Harbor Department. Expanding petroleum related infrastructure is critical to meet Californias transportation fuel needs, even with pursuing aggressive strategies to use alternative fuels and reduce demand for all transportation fuels. In 1992, a navigation improvements project was proposed to ameliorate efficiency and safety problems at the port and the plan envisioned a site for a new deep-draft liquid bulk marine terminal at Pier 400. The channel leading from the ocean to Pier 400, which was dredged specifically for deep draft vessel operations, remains unutilized for its original purpose. The proposed project would involve construction of a deep-draft crude oil terminal offloading facility at Berth 408 on Pier 400; a tank farm containing two storage/transfer tanks, a fuel tank, and related equipment on Pier 400; a tank farm on Pier 300 containing 14 storage/transfer tanks; and pipelines connecting the terminal to the tank farm sites, the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island, the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street, and to other pipeline systems. The five acres of terminal and associated facilities would be constructed over 30 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final supplemental EIS considers a reduced project alternative and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project is expected to begin vessel-unloading operations in 2010. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would efficiently accommodate a portion of the forecasted increase in demand for crude oil to be shipped to southern California. The terminal could accommodate 677,000 barrels per day and would provide a storage capacity of four million barrels. The new facilities at the pier would also respond to the trend toward larger vessels, a projected shortfall in crude oil vessel berthing capacity at the San Pedro Bay Ports, and an increased need for crude oil storage capacity for efficient offloading of vessels at berth. Construction activities would employ 732 full-time equivalent employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Habitat for California least tern, brown pelican, Western snowy plover, black skimmer, and burrowing owl, and other special status species would be displaced or degraded. Pollutant runoff from the terminal could contribute to the degradation of water in San Pedro Bay; oil spills and spills of other contaminants could have a devastating impact on the bay ecosystem and contaminant spills could endanger human health. The facilities would lie within an area of significant and relatively frequent seismic activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS, see 08-0354D, Volume 32, Number 3. For the abstract of the final EIS on the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements Project, see 92-0497F, Volume 16, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 080478, 1,452 pages, November 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Storage KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazards KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PACIFIC+L.A.+MARINE+TERMINAL+LLC%2C+PIER+400%2C+BERTH+408+PROJECT%2C+LOS+ANGELES+HARBOR%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Concomitant Adsorption and Desorption of Organic Vapor in Dry and Humid Air Streams using Microwave and Direct Electrothermal Swing Adsorption AN - 754542161; 13266611 AB - Industrial gas streams can contain highly variable organic vapor concentrations that need to be processed before they are emitted to the atmosphere. Fluctuations in organic vapor concentrations make it more difficult to operate a biofilter when compared to a constant vapor concentration. Hence, there is a need to stabilize the concentration of rapidly fluctuating gas streams for optimum operation of biofilters. This paper describes new concomitant adsorption desorption (CAD) systems used with variable organic vapor concentration gas streams to provide the same gas stream, but at a user-selected constant vapor concentration that can then be more readily processed by a secondary air pollution control device such as a biofilter. The systems adsorb organic vapor from gas streams and simultaneously heat the adsorbent using microwave or direct electrothermal energy to desorb the organic vapor at a user-selected set-point concentration. Both systems depicted a high degree of concentration stabilization with a mean relative deviation between set-point and stabilized concentration of 0.3-0.4%. The direct electrothermal CAD system was also evaluated to treat a humid gas stream (relative humidity = 85%) that contained a variable organic vapor concentration. The high humidity did not interfere with CAD operation as water vapor did not adsorb but penetrated through the adsorbent. These results are important because they demonstrate the ability of CAD to effectively dampen concentration fluctuation in gas streams. JF - Environmental Science & Technology AU - Hashisho, Zaher AU - Emamipour, Hamidreza AU - Rood, Mark J AU - Hay, K James AU - Kim, Byung J AU - Thurston, Deborah AD - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2W2, Canada, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, and Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois 61826 Y1 - 2008/11/19/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 19 SP - 9317 EP - 9322 PB - American Chemical Society, 1155 16th St., NW Washington DC 20036 USA VL - 42 IS - 24 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Relative humidity KW - Environmental sciences KW - Air pollution control KW - water vapor KW - Atmosphere KW - Streams KW - Vapors KW - Microwaves KW - Stream Pollution KW - Biofilters KW - Desorption KW - Atmospheric pollution control KW - Adsorbents KW - Humidity KW - Stabilizing KW - Biofiltration KW - Air pollution KW - High humidities KW - Adsorption KW - Fluctuations KW - Industrial atmospheric pollution KW - Pollution control KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - M2 551.510.42:Air Pollution (551.510.42) KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - ENA 01:Air Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754542161?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.atitle=Concomitant+Adsorption+and+Desorption+of+Organic+Vapor+in+Dry+and+Humid+Air+Streams+using+Microwave+and+Direct+Electrothermal+Swing+Adsorption&rft.au=Hashisho%2C+Zaher%3BEmamipour%2C+Hamidreza%3BRood%2C+Mark+J%3BHay%2C+K+James%3BKim%2C+Byung+J%3BThurston%2C+Deborah&rft.aulast=Hashisho&rft.aufirst=Zaher&rft.date=2008-11-19&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=9317&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fes801285v L2 - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es801285v LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-10-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Air pollution; Relative humidity; Biofilters; Desorption; Microwaves; Adsorption; Humidity; Stabilizing; Pollution control; High humidities; Atmospheric pollution control; Environmental sciences; Industrial atmospheric pollution; Biofiltration; Vapors; water vapor; Air pollution control; Streams; Atmosphere; Adsorbents; Stream Pollution; Fluctuations DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es801285v ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 756824856; 13735-080476_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 756824847; 13735-080476_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 756824765; 13735-080476_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 756824722; 13735-080476_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 756824712; 13735-080476_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS, MINIMUM FLOWS: PROJECT REPORT. AN - 16385187; 13735 AB - PURPOSE: Five multipurpose impoundment projects along the White River are considered with respect to the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the watershed, which lies in Missouri and Arkansas. The White River and its tributaries drain 10,620 square miles in Missouri and 17,145 square miles in Arkansas. The impoundments under consideration are Beaver, Table Rock, and Bull Shoals lakes on the White River; Norfolk Lake on the North Fork River; and Greer Ferry Lake on the Little Red River. Each of the five multipurpose projects provides flood control, hydropower, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife uses. The river basin originates in the Boston Mountains of northwestern Arkansas. Three forks come together in Washington County to form the mainstem. The White River is first impounded as Lake Sequoyah, a 500-acre reservoir at the junction of the Middle Fork and the mainstem. The river flows south out of Lake Sequoyah and joins the West Fork before entering Beaver Lake just west of Eureka Springs. The mainstem flows out of Beaver Dam, the first in a series of four hydroelectric dams, northward into Missouri near the town of Eagle Rock. The White then flows eastward into an impoundment called Table Rock Lake, just below its confluence with the James River near Branson. Below Table Rock Lake, the White is again impounded by Powersite Dam near Forsyth to form Lake Taneycomo. The river meanders southward and flows back into Arkansas, where it is impounded by Bull Shoals Dam. The river then continues to the Mississippi River near Montgomery Point. Currently, each reservoir is divided into two zones, flood pool and conservation pool. In addition to the No Action Alternative, three storage reallocation alternatives were considered in the draft EIS of May 2006, specifically, reallocation from the conservation pool, reallocation from the flood control pool, and a 50/50 reallocation from each pool at each reservoir. Methods of release considered at each project include existing station service units and siphon release, new station service units release, main turbine release, and siphon only release. The preferred alternatives are reallocation from the flood pool released through an existing hydropower main turbine and 50/50 reallocation with release through existing station service units and siphons. Empire Electric, a regional power company, would be compensated with a one-time buyout for losses due to the Bull Shoals storage reallocation. The Southwestern Power Administration would calculate losses to the federal hydropower interests annually. This final supplement to the draft EIS addresses developments related to the authorized alternatives at Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes. The supplement also provides a determination regarding reasonable continued use of lakeside facilities and the determination by the Southwestern Power Administration of compensation for hydropower losses at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Project License No, 2221 hydroelectric facility and the offset of federal hydropower losses at Bull Shoals and Northfork lakes. At Bull Shoals Lake, the Alternative would reallocate five feet of flood control storage for minimum flow releases of 590 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the main turbine; the top of the conservation pool would be raised from 654 to 659 feet. At Norfolk Lake, the Alternative would reallocate 3.5 feet of flood control storage to be evenly divided between the conservation and flood control pools to provide a minimum flow releases of 185 cfs; the top of the conservation pool would be raised by 1.75 feet from 552 to 553.75 feet. Construction costs for flood pool reallocation for Bull Shoals and Norfolk lakes are estimated at $12.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed releases would comply with Congressional directives regarding minimum flows along the White River while providing compensation to the hydropower users and affected facility operators. Wetlands and other wildlife and fish habitat dependent on minimum river flows would rejuvenate and maintain their improved status. Critical habitat for sensitive species would benefit from these improvements. Adversely affected recreation facilities at Bull Shoals Lake would be reconstructed. Reservoir areas would increase one to 53 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Loss of flood control storage capacity could result in slight increases in flooding in some areas under low probability storm events. Impoundment increases would displace shoreline vegetation, wetlands, and recreational facilities. Hydropower generation capacity losses would be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-103), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 06-0458D, Volume 30, Number 3 and 08-0490D, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080476, 1,279 pages, November 18, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Turbines KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Missouri KW - White River KW - Energy and Water Resources Development Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+MINIMUM+FLOWS%3A+PROJECT+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 18, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 102 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255804; 14462-0_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 102 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 28 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255803; 14462-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 93 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255516; 14462-0_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 91 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255514; 14462-0_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 91 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 86 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255513; 14462-0_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 86 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 72 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255512; 14462-0_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 71 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255511; 14462-0_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 18 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255510; 14462-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 17 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255509; 14462-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 11 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255508; 14462-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 10 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255507; 14462-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 6 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255506; 14462-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 5 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255505; 14462-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 90 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255496; 14462-0_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 90 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 84 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255495; 14462-0_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 84 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 83 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255494; 14462-0_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 83 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 70 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255493; 14462-0_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 69 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255492; 14462-0_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 16 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255491; 14462-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 9 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255489; 14462-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 8 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255488; 14462-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 3 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255486; 14462-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 114 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255374; 14462-0_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 114 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 113 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255369; 14462-0_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 113 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 64 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255359; 14462-0_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 64 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 52 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255354; 14462-0_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 43 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255350; 14462-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 88 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255146; 14462-0_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 88 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255146?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 87 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255145; 14462-0_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 75 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255141; 14462-0_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 14 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255130; 14462-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 13 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255119; 14462-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 7 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876255109; 14462-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 120 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254464; 14462-0_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 120 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 119 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254459; 14462-0_0119 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 119 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 54 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254443; 14462-0_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 54 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 53 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254436; 14462-0_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 47 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254434; 14462-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 39 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254433; 14462-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 115 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254405; 14462-0_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 115 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 57 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254403; 14462-0_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 56 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254401; 14462-0_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 48 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254400; 14462-0_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 45 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254396; 14462-0_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 44 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254393; 14462-0_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 40 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254390; 14462-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 118 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254344; 14462-0_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 118 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 117 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254342; 14462-0_0117 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 117 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 61 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254341; 14462-0_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 58 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254338; 14462-0_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 50 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254337; 14462-0_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 49 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254334; 14462-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 46 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254331; 14462-0_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 42 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254329; 14462-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 41 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254326; 14462-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 41 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 38 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876254325; 14462-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 85 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253992; 14462-0_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 80 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253991; 14462-0_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 80 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 79 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253990; 14462-0_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 79 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 78 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253989; 14462-0_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 74 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253988; 14462-0_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 74 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 19 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253987; 14462-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 1 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253986; 14462-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 68 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253981; 14462-0_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 51 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253979; 14462-0_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 96 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253248; 14462-0_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 95 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253247; 14462-0_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 22 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253246; 14462-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 21 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253241; 14462-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 109 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253114; 14462-0_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 109 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 108 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253110; 14462-0_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 108 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 37 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253104; 14462-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 33 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876253100; 14462-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 112 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252235; 14462-0_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 112 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 105 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252234; 14462-0_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 105 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 104 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252233; 14462-0_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 104 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 35 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252228; 14462-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 30 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252222; 14462-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 82 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252116; 14462-0_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 81 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252110; 14462-0_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 81 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 77 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252104; 14462-0_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 77 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 76 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252093; 14462-0_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 12 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252089; 14462-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 2 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876252088; 14462-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 103 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251946; 14462-0_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 103 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 101 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251945; 14462-0_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 101 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 100 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251944; 14462-0_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 100 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 97 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251943; 14462-0_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 97 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 36 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251942; 14462-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 29 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251941; 14462-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 27 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251940; 14462-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 26 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251939; 14462-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 23 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251938; 14462-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 60 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876251785; 14462-0_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 67 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876250992; 14462-0_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876250992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 55 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876248798; 14462-0_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=48&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=London+Business+School+Review&rft.issn=20571607&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2F2057-1615.12120 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 107 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246797; 14462-0_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 107 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 106 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246784; 14462-0_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 106 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 98 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246777; 14462-0_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 98 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 31 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246769; 14462-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 24 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246764; 14462-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 20 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246760; 14462-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 111 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246452; 14462-0_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 111 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 110 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246444; 14462-0_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 110 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 34 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246433; 14462-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 25 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246430; 14462-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 73 of 120] T2 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 876246109; 14462-0_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA. AN - 873131259; 14465-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The homeporting of additional surface ships at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida is proposed. The Navy port, which is located in northern Florida east of Jacksonville along the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean, maintains and operates facilities providing support to the operations of deploying Navy ships, aviation units, and staff, both home based and transient. NAVSTA Mayport also provides logistic support for operating forces, dependent activities, and other commands as assigned. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the Department of Defense to be capable of swiftly defeating aggression in overlapping conflicts worldwide. This required the Navy to modify its operational philosophy and to ensure its capability in providing more warfare assets, more quickly, to multiple locations. The Navy adopted the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) to institutionalize an enhanced naval surge capacity. Under the guidance of the U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), the fleet training cycle has been adjusted with refined maintenance, modernization, manning, and training processes to enable the fleet to consistently sustain a level of at least six surge-capable carrier strike groups available within 30 days and one additional strike group able to deploy within 90 days. The Navy has developed plans for coastal infrastructure to ensure appropriate support for the FRP and the Navy's required operations battle force. In 2010, the Navy will begin to decommission frigates currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport and port infrastructure will become available. The Navy needs to utilize the available facilities at NAVSTA Mayport, both pierside and shoreside, in an effective and efficient manner, thereby minimizing new construction. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has directed USFF Command to review and assess a broad range of options for homeporting additional ships at NAVSTA Mayport. This final EIS assesses 12 action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives involve various types and numbers of ships, including those types of ships currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport (cruisers, destroyers, and frigates) as well as additional types of ships, namely, amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport dock ships, dock landing ships, and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Depending on the alternative chosen, the proposed actions could involve dredging and disposal of dredge spoil, improvement of maintenance facilities, upgrading of utility lines, wharf improvements, personnel support improvements, addition of parking facilities and other surface transport improvements, and/or construction of nuclear propulsion plant maintenance facilities. The Navy's preferred alternative is to homeport a single nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at NAVSTA Mayport as early as 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The movement of additional ships to NAVSTA Mayport would ensure the effective support of fleet operational requirements through efficient use of waterfront and shoreside facilities at the Florida base. Moreover, the use of NAVSTA Mayport would help preserve the distribution of homeport locations and ports, reducing risk to fleet resources in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Full use of the NAVSTA Mayport would preserve the capabilities of the Jacksonville Fleet Concentration Area, thereby supporting naval surge capability. Utilization of the port would optimize fleet access to naval training ranges and operating areas by retaining ship homeport locations within six hours transit time of local operating areas. The expansion of port facilities and activities would result in the creation of local jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Initial dredging to deepen the harbor channels at the port and disposal of dredge spoil would destroy benthos and alter benthic sediment composition and topography. The disposal of an estimated 5.7 million cubic yards of dredge spoil from the initial deepening work would displace 61 percent of the remaining capacity of the Jacksonville Ocean Dredged Material Dumping Site (ODMDS). Due to maintenance dredging requirements following the completion of the initial harbor deepening, the capacity of the ODMDS would be exceeded within 10 years following initial deepening. Impervious surface at the port would increase moderately, increasing stormwater runoff volumes. Approximately 33 acres of vegetation and the associated low-quality wildlife habitat would be displaced. Project implementation would cause significant fluctuations in area population over the phased six-year implementation period. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0123D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080473, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--1,218 pages, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Navigation KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Radiation Hazard KW - Ships KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Naval Station Mayport KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facility Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA. AN - 873131226; 14465-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The homeporting of additional surface ships at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida is proposed. The Navy port, which is located in northern Florida east of Jacksonville along the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean, maintains and operates facilities providing support to the operations of deploying Navy ships, aviation units, and staff, both home based and transient. NAVSTA Mayport also provides logistic support for operating forces, dependent activities, and other commands as assigned. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the Department of Defense to be capable of swiftly defeating aggression in overlapping conflicts worldwide. This required the Navy to modify its operational philosophy and to ensure its capability in providing more warfare assets, more quickly, to multiple locations. The Navy adopted the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) to institutionalize an enhanced naval surge capacity. Under the guidance of the U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), the fleet training cycle has been adjusted with refined maintenance, modernization, manning, and training processes to enable the fleet to consistently sustain a level of at least six surge-capable carrier strike groups available within 30 days and one additional strike group able to deploy within 90 days. The Navy has developed plans for coastal infrastructure to ensure appropriate support for the FRP and the Navy's required operations battle force. In 2010, the Navy will begin to decommission frigates currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport and port infrastructure will become available. The Navy needs to utilize the available facilities at NAVSTA Mayport, both pierside and shoreside, in an effective and efficient manner, thereby minimizing new construction. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has directed USFF Command to review and assess a broad range of options for homeporting additional ships at NAVSTA Mayport. This final EIS assesses 12 action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives involve various types and numbers of ships, including those types of ships currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport (cruisers, destroyers, and frigates) as well as additional types of ships, namely, amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport dock ships, dock landing ships, and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Depending on the alternative chosen, the proposed actions could involve dredging and disposal of dredge spoil, improvement of maintenance facilities, upgrading of utility lines, wharf improvements, personnel support improvements, addition of parking facilities and other surface transport improvements, and/or construction of nuclear propulsion plant maintenance facilities. The Navy's preferred alternative is to homeport a single nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at NAVSTA Mayport as early as 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The movement of additional ships to NAVSTA Mayport would ensure the effective support of fleet operational requirements through efficient use of waterfront and shoreside facilities at the Florida base. Moreover, the use of NAVSTA Mayport would help preserve the distribution of homeport locations and ports, reducing risk to fleet resources in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Full use of the NAVSTA Mayport would preserve the capabilities of the Jacksonville Fleet Concentration Area, thereby supporting naval surge capability. Utilization of the port would optimize fleet access to naval training ranges and operating areas by retaining ship homeport locations within six hours transit time of local operating areas. The expansion of port facilities and activities would result in the creation of local jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Initial dredging to deepen the harbor channels at the port and disposal of dredge spoil would destroy benthos and alter benthic sediment composition and topography. The disposal of an estimated 5.7 million cubic yards of dredge spoil from the initial deepening work would displace 61 percent of the remaining capacity of the Jacksonville Ocean Dredged Material Dumping Site (ODMDS). Due to maintenance dredging requirements following the completion of the initial harbor deepening, the capacity of the ODMDS would be exceeded within 10 years following initial deepening. Impervious surface at the port would increase moderately, increasing stormwater runoff volumes. Approximately 33 acres of vegetation and the associated low-quality wildlife habitat would be displaced. Project implementation would cause significant fluctuations in area population over the phased six-year implementation period. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0123D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080473, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--1,218 pages, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Navigation KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Radiation Hazard KW - Ships KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Naval Station Mayport KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facility Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOMEPORTING OF ADDITIONAL SURFACE SHIPS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, FLORIDA. AN - 754907632; 14465 AB - PURPOSE: The homeporting of additional surface ships at Naval Station (NAVSTA) Mayport, Florida is proposed. The Navy port, which is located in northern Florida east of Jacksonville along the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean, maintains and operates facilities providing support to the operations of deploying Navy ships, aviation units, and staff, both home based and transient. NAVSTA Mayport also provides logistic support for operating forces, dependent activities, and other commands as assigned. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the Department of Defense to be capable of swiftly defeating aggression in overlapping conflicts worldwide. This required the Navy to modify its operational philosophy and to ensure its capability in providing more warfare assets, more quickly, to multiple locations. The Navy adopted the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) to institutionalize an enhanced naval surge capacity. Under the guidance of the U.S. Fleet Forces (USFF), the fleet training cycle has been adjusted with refined maintenance, modernization, manning, and training processes to enable the fleet to consistently sustain a level of at least six surge-capable carrier strike groups available within 30 days and one additional strike group able to deploy within 90 days. The Navy has developed plans for coastal infrastructure to ensure appropriate support for the FRP and the Navy's required operations battle force. In 2010, the Navy will begin to decommission frigates currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport and port infrastructure will become available. The Navy needs to utilize the available facilities at NAVSTA Mayport, both pierside and shoreside, in an effective and efficient manner, thereby minimizing new construction. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has directed USFF Command to review and assess a broad range of options for homeporting additional ships at NAVSTA Mayport. This final EIS assesses 12 action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The action alternatives involve various types and numbers of ships, including those types of ships currently homeported at NAVSTA Mayport (cruisers, destroyers, and frigates) as well as additional types of ships, namely, amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport dock ships, dock landing ships, and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Depending on the alternative chosen, the proposed actions could involve dredging and disposal of dredge spoil, improvement of maintenance facilities, upgrading of utility lines, wharf improvements, personnel support improvements, addition of parking facilities and other surface transport improvements, and/or construction of nuclear propulsion plant maintenance facilities. The Navy's preferred alternative is to homeport a single nuclear-powered aircraft carrier at NAVSTA Mayport as early as 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The movement of additional ships to NAVSTA Mayport would ensure the effective support of fleet operational requirements through efficient use of waterfront and shoreside facilities at the Florida base. Moreover, the use of NAVSTA Mayport would help preserve the distribution of homeport locations and ports, reducing risk to fleet resources in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Full use of the NAVSTA Mayport would preserve the capabilities of the Jacksonville Fleet Concentration Area, thereby supporting naval surge capability. Utilization of the port would optimize fleet access to naval training ranges and operating areas by retaining ship homeport locations within six hours transit time of local operating areas. The expansion of port facilities and activities would result in the creation of local jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Initial dredging to deepen the harbor channels at the port and disposal of dredge spoil would destroy benthos and alter benthic sediment composition and topography. The disposal of an estimated 5.7 million cubic yards of dredge spoil from the initial deepening work would displace 61 percent of the remaining capacity of the Jacksonville Ocean Dredged Material Dumping Site (ODMDS). Due to maintenance dredging requirements following the completion of the initial harbor deepening, the capacity of the ODMDS would be exceeded within 10 years following initial deepening. Impervious surface at the port would increase moderately, increasing stormwater runoff volumes. Approximately 33 acres of vegetation and the associated low-quality wildlife habitat would be displaced. Project implementation would cause significant fluctuations in area population over the phased six-year implementation period. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0123D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080473, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--1,218 pages, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Defense Programs KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Navigation KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Radiation Hazard KW - Ships KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Naval Station Mayport KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HOMEPORTING+OF+ADDITIONAL+SURFACE+SHIPS+AT+NAVAL+STATION+MAYPORT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facility Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MIDDLEBURY SPUR PROJECT, MIDDLEBURY, ADDISON COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 754907619; 14462 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the freight transportation system in the town of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont is proposed. The project would provide improvements along US 7, local roads, and the mainline railroad from Middlebury to Pittsford in Rutland County. Material from the Omya marble quarry is currently trucked on US 7 and local roads, passing through historic Brandon Village, to a processing plant in Pittsford, 23 miles south of the quarry. US 7, which is the major north-south arterial in the western part of the state, has a high level of truck traffic. In Brandon Village, this has resulted in threats to pedestrian safety, impeded access to businesses and side streets, degraded historic buildings, and marred local visual aesthetics. A railroad, owned by the state of Vermont and considered underutilized, roughly parallels US 7 within the corridor. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS, along with five options associated with the build alternatives. Under the preferred alternative, the project would provide for a 3.3-mile rail spur to allow freight shippers to access the mainline of railway. The spur would begin at the quarry and extend south and then southwest toward US 7, roughly following the current Omya access road. A transloading facility would be constructed along the rail spur just south of the quarry to allow other shippers access to the tail spur. The alignment would cross Lower Foote Street about 25 feet below the existing elevation, severing Lower Foote Street. The alignment would then cross under a new US 7 vehicular bridge, turn westward toward the mainline, traversing mostly farmland, and cross Halladay Road at-grade or via a grade separation structure; alternatively, Halladay Road could be severed and relocated. Toward the western terminus, the alternative would turn south, bridging Creek Road and Otter Creek and connecting with the mainline heading south. Depending on the exact configuration and design of the spur, the estimated cost of the preferred alternative in 2008 dollars ranges from $33.9 million to $34.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide for the safe and efficient transportation of freight to and from Middlebury by providing better access to the rail system and removing freight trucks from the local roadway system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition would result in the displacement of 16 parcels encompassing 55 acres of land. From 29.9 to 34.9 acres of open field habitat would be displaced, along with 0.9 acre of forested land and 26 to 34 acres of farmland. Rail structures would alter the high quality visual aesthetics within the corridor, which traverses scenic farmland. Rail operations would significantly increase intermittent noise levels within the corridor; noise levels would moderately exceed federal standards in the vicinity of a number of sensitive receptor sites, and five residential sites would be affected by excessive vibration. The spur would traverse 8.2 to 10.4 acres of archaeologically sensitive land. If the spur crosses Halladay Road via a grade separation structure, one historic house would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0265D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080470, Final EIS--386 pages, Appendices--440 pages, Figures--159 pages and maps, November 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-07-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=MIDDLEBURY+SPUR+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLEBURY%2C+ADDISON+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Montpelier, Vermont; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Changes in contaminant mass discharge from DNAPL source mass depletion; evaluation at two field sites AN - 1420512092; 2013-064187 AB - Changes in contaminant fluxes resulting from aggressive remediation of dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source zone were investigated at two sites, one at Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah, and the other at Ft. Lewis Military Reservation, Washington. Passive Flux Meters (PFM) and a variation of the Integral Pumping Test (IPT) were used to measure fluxes in ten wells installed along a transect down-gradient of the trichloroethylene (TCE) source zone, and perpendicular to the mean groundwater flow direction. At both sites, groundwater and contaminant fluxes were measured before and after the source-zone treatment. The measured contaminant fluxes (J; ML (super -2) T (super -1) ) were integrated across the well transect to estimate contaminant mass discharge (M (sub D) ; MT (super -1) ) from the source zone. Estimated M (sub D) before source treatment, based on both PFM and IPT methods, were approximately 76 g/day for TCE at the Hill AFB site; and approximately 640 g/day for TCE, and approximately 206 g/day for cis-dichloroethylene (DCE) at the Ft. Lewis site. TCE flux measurements made 1 year after source treatment at the Hill AFB site decreased to approximately 5 g/day. On the other hand, increased fluxes of DCE, a degradation byproduct of TCE, in tests subsequent to remediation at the Hill AFB site suggest enhanced microbial degradation after surfactant flooding. At the Ft. Lewis site, TCE mass discharge rates subsequent to remediation decreased to approximately 3 g/day for TCE and approximately 3 g/day for DCE approximately 1.8 years after remediation. At both field sites, PFM and IPT approaches provided comparable results for contaminant mass discharge rates, and show significant reductions (>90%) in TCE mass discharge as a result of DNAPL mass depletion from the source zone. JF - Journal of Contaminant Hydrology AU - Brooks, Michael C AU - Wood, A Lynn AU - Annable, Michael D AU - Hatfield, Kirk AU - Cho, Jaehyun AU - Holbert, Charles AU - Rao, P Suresh C AU - Enfield, Carl G AU - Lynch, Kira AU - Smith, Richard E Y1 - 2008/11/14/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Nov 14 SP - 140 EP - 153 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 102 IS - 1-2 SN - 0169-7722, 0169-7722 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - degradation KW - contaminant plumes KW - observation wells KW - dense nonaqueous phase liquids KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - pump tests KW - Fort Lewis Military Reservation KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - discharge KW - flowmeters KW - biodegradation KW - experimental studies KW - Washington KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - rates KW - measurement KW - aquifers KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - water table KW - organic compounds KW - Hill Air Force Base KW - Utah KW - trichloroethylene KW - military facilities KW - point sources KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1420512092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Contaminant+Hydrology&rft.atitle=Changes+in+contaminant+mass+discharge+from+DNAPL+source+mass+depletion%3B+evaluation+at+two+field+sites&rft.au=Brooks%2C+Michael+C%3BWood%2C+A+Lynn%3BAnnable%2C+Michael+D%3BHatfield%2C+Kirk%3BCho%2C+Jaehyun%3BHolbert%2C+Charles%3BRao%2C+P+Suresh+C%3BEnfield%2C+Carl+G%3BLynch%2C+Kira%3BSmith%2C+Richard+E&rft.aulast=Brooks&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2008-11-14&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=140&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Contaminant+Hydrology&rft.issn=01697722&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jconhyd.2008.05.008 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01697722 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Based on Publisher-supplied data N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; biodegradation; chlorinated hydrocarbons; contaminant plumes; degradation; dense nonaqueous phase liquids; discharge; experimental studies; flowmeters; Fort Lewis Military Reservation; ground water; halogenated hydrocarbons; Hill Air Force Base; measurement; military facilities; nonaqueous phase liquids; observation wells; organic compounds; point sources; pollutants; pollution; pump tests; rates; remediation; trichloroethylene; United States; Utah; Washington; water table DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.05.008 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255504; 14461-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255503; 14461-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255485; 14461-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255484; 14461-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255483; 14461-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 876255348; 14461-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/876255348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HONOLULU HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII. AN - 754907240; 14461 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a high-capacity transit service project on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The study corridor extends from Kapolei in the west to the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH Manoa) in the east and is confined by the Waianae and Koolau Mountain Ranges to the north and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The corridor includes the majority of housing and employment on Oahu. Its east-west length is approximately 23 miles, and between Pearl City and Aiea its width is less than one mile. Four alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The build alternatives include: the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via Salt Lake Boulevard (Salt Lake Alternative); the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport (Airport Alternative); and the Fixed Guideway Transit Alternative via the Airport and Salt Lake (Airport & Salt Lake Alternative). All action alternatives would provide a fixed guideway transit system from East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center (the project). Planned extensions are anticipated to West Kapolei, UH Manoa, and Waikiki. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected by the City Council includes the project and the planned extensions. The system would use steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology and could be either automated or employ drivers. All parts of the system would either be elevated or in exclusive right-of-way. The guideway would follow the same alignment for all build alternatives, except between Aloha Stadium and Kalihi. In addition to the guideway, the project would require construction of transit stations and supporting facilities. Supporting facilities would include a vehicle maintenance and storage facility, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and traction power substations. The maintenance and storage facility would be located either in Hoopili near Farrington Highway between North-South Road and Fort Weaver Road or near Leeward Community College. Some bus service would be reconfigured to bring riders on local buses to nearby fixed guideway transit stations. The bus fleet would be increased to support the proposed system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve mobility for travelers who face increasingly severe traffic congestion, improve transportation system reliability, provide accessibility to new development in the Ewa-Kapolei-Makakilo area and improve transportation equity for all travelers. The project would also provide additional transit capacity and an alternative to private automobile travel, as well as improve transit links within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 20 residences, 1 church, and between 62 and 67 businesses would be relocated by project implementation. Moderate noise impacts would affect between 18 and 23 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 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: 080469, Draft EIS--428 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, November 13, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Hawaii KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/754907240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=HONOLULU+HIGH-CAPACITY+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+OAHU%2C+HAWAII.&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 - 2010-08-25 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 26 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827502; 14455-080497_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 6 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827501; 14455-080497_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 25 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827476; 14455-080497_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 24 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827473; 14455-080497_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 21 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827470; 14455-080497_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 14 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827465; 14455-080497_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 13 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827462; 14455-080497_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 22 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827394; 14455-080497_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 19 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827387; 14455-080497_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 17 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827373; 14455-080497_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 9 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827365; 14455-080497_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 7 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827359; 14455-080497_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 18 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827346; 14455-080497_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 20 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827343; 14455-080497_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827339; 14455-080497_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 4 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827336; 14455-080497_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827322; 14455-080497_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 10 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827298; 14455-080497_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 23 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827288; 14455-080497_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827284; 14455-080497_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 5 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827278; 14455-080497_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 16 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827268; 14455-080497_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 15 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827259; 14455-080497_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 12 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827247; 14455-080497_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 11 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827236; 14455-080497_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 8 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827221; 14455-080497_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. [Part 27 of 27] T2 - APPLICATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT: ALBERTA CLIPPER PIPELINE PROJECT, EXTENDING FROM HARDISTY, ALBERTA, CANADA TO SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN. AN - 756827207; 14455-080497_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) is proposed for the construction and operation of pipeline facilities to transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin. The Alberta Clipper Project pipeline, to be constructed by the permit applicant, would extend 992 miles and provide a capacity to deliver 450,000 barrels per day of crude oil from a supply hub near Hardisty to an existing terminal in Superior. In Canada, the project would include 666 miles of new pipeline and associated facilities, extending from Hardisty to the U.S. border near Neche, North Dakota. The Canadian portion of the project has been approved by the National Energy Board of Canada and other Canadian reviewing entities and is under construction. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Project would consist of 331.8 miles of new 36-inch pipeline and associate facilities installed primarily within or adjacent to existing Enbridge pipeline corridors. New construction at existing pump stations, as well a construction of delivery facilities and mainline valves, would also occur. This draft EIS addresses only the potential impacts of the portion of the project occurring within the United States. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternatives, system alterative, and major pipeline route, route variation alternatives, above ground facility sitting alternatives, and Superior terminal expansion alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline system would address the increasing demand for oil in the United States, which has been accompanied by a decreasing domestic crude oil supply. By importing oil from Canada, the nation would reduce its dependence on not wholly reliable and sometimes hostile, sources outside North America. Finally, the project would provide facilities to meet demonstrated interested in an overall Enbridge. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the short-term loss of 2,574 acres of farmland located within the project rights-of-way. Construction workers could encounter hazardous waste sites in several areas along the rights-of-way, and anthrax spores could be encountered in soils in northwestern Minnesota. The pipeline would traverse 82 perennial waterbodies, including one pond and two lakes, and 79 intermittent or seasonal waterbodies in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Approximately 1,397 acres of wetlands would be impacted during construction, 693 acres of which would be permanently maintained in a herbaceous state during operations. The affected areas would include 1,403 acres of forested land, 2,574 acres of farmland, 368.5 acres of developed lands, 294 acres of open lands, and 1,434 acres of wetlands. Vegetation within the permanent rights-of-way to be converted to a herbaceous state would include 753 acres of forested lands, 584 acres of farmland, 138 acres of developed land, 152 acres of open land, and 713 acres of wetlands. Large oil spills, though unlikely, could have significant impacts on wildlife and fish habitat, vegetation, water quality, and human health. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13337, 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: 080497, Draft EIS--377 pages, Appendices--1,891 pages, November 8, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Indian Reservations KW - International Programs KW - Lakes KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spills KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Canada KW - Minnesota KW - North Dakota KW - Wisconsin KW - Executive Order 13337, Presidential Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits 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/756827207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=APPLICATION+FOR+PRESIDENTIAL+PERMIT%3A+ALBERTA+CLIPPER+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+EXTENDING+FROM+HARDISTY%2C+ALBERTA%2C+CANADA+TO+SUPERIOR%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of State, Washington, District of Columbia; DOS N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 8, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125512; 13726-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, 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: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boulder, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125509; 13726-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, 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: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boulder, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 873125502; 13726-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, 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: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873125502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boulder, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 756824816; 13725-080459_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 287-acre marine container terminal on the Cooper River at the Charleston Naval Complex of North Charleston, South Carolina are proposed. A recently updated forecast of container cargo throughput for the naval complex would grow from 1.65 million TEU (one TEU is equivalent to one standard 20-foot shipping container) in 2004 to 4.0 million TEU in 2025. Moreover, new facilities are necessary to accommodate the recently developed post-Panamax class of cargo ships. Estimates indicate that the nine berths at the three existing complex terminals have a maximum annual capacity of 2.6 million TEU. Under the proposal forwarded by the by the South Carolina State Ports Authority via a final EIS issued in December 2006, the Authority would develop 11.5 acres of wharf structure on the west side of Cooper River, with a berthing area 40 feet deep and 150 feet wide. The wharf would be include six container cranes with a minimum outreach of 200 feet. The wharf would include three berths with an overall length of 3,510 linear feet. The applicant would also develop 225 acres of lighted, paved area for container processing and storage upland of the wharf and 40 acres of paved area and buildings for support gate structures and other operations and facilities. To provide adequate access to the terminal, the South Carolina Department of Transportation would construct a four-lane access road from the entrance of the port facility to Interstate 26 (I-26), reconstruct the interchange at Exit 217 on the interstate, construct a four-lane roadway at Stromboli Avenue to provide eastbound and westbound access to I-26 via the port access road; reopen Stromboli Avenue to through traffic, and construct a second bridge across Shipyard Creek from the local access roadway to Tidewater Road. The project would include the development of 25 acres of stormwater management facilities at the project site, focused on a stormwater treatment pond along the south side of the terminal. In addition to the proposed development, the final EIS of considered a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would not require federal permit authorization, and terminal site alternatives. This addendum to the final EIS provides additional data concerning air quality and meteorology pertinent to the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would help provide for state-owned port facilities that meet the reasonably projected throughput capacity for containerized cargo in the state of South Carolina for the next 20 years. Development of the proposed project would probably spur ancillary commercial and industrial development within the region; it would be likely that such development would occur in appropriately zoned areas. Maritime support industries would be most likely to located in the Port Overlay District established by the City of North Charleston for such purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would transform a site that is largely undeveloped and natural to a site containing heavy industrial uses; however, this impact would be in keeping with the current zoning and planned redevelopment of the naval complex. Approximately 2.4 acres of freshwater marsh, 56.6 acres of open-water habitat, 9.6 acres of tidal wetlands would be displaced by the terminal. Essential fish habitat in the displaced by the project footprint would 2.1 acres of intertidal mudflats, 2.4 acres of shallow subtidal water, and 52.1 acres of deep water habitat. Fish habitat impacts would also include deepening of 77.9 acres of estuarine water column. Road construction would displace 4.2 acres of tidal marsh associated with Shipyard Creek, and 0.4 acre of freshwater wetlands. Nonmaritime uses in the Port Overlay District could experience pressure to relocate from parties interested in maritime support services. Commercial and some residential property would be acquired and displaced due to access road rights-of-way development. The project would affect two Cold War-era properties at the naval complex (buildings 643 and 686), but these are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Visual aesthetics from a downstream recreational marine would be degraded somewhat. Shoreline processes and floodplain capacity would be negatively affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0171D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 07-0002F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080459, 51 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Estuaries KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Charleston Naval Complex KW - South Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Charleston, South Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). AN - 756824775; 13727-080461_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey is proposed. The applicant, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) proposes to modify its existing natural gas transmission system via the following actions: installation of 12.9 miles of 36-inch pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts to extend the I-10 pipeline; installation of 7.5 miles of 36-inch pipeline to replace a segment of the existing 24-inch Q-1 system pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts; replacement of 11 miles of four- and six-inch E-3 system pipeline with 12-inch pipeline; provision of a new 10,319-horsepower compressor station in Bristol County Massachusetts; modification of three existing compressor stations to accommodate bidirectional flow along Algonquin's system; provision of aboveground over-pressure regulation at the existing Fore River and Sharon meter stations and a two regulator stations at the Q-1 system termini in Massachusetts; and installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities, including four mainline valves, two taps, two remote blow-off valves, five pig launchers, and three pig receivers, all in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Compressor stations to b modified to accommodate bidirectional flow include the Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode Island; the Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County, Connecticut; and the Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, new Jersey. The majority of the proposed facilities would be located within or adjacent to Algonquin's existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or NSTAR Electric Company's existing powerline rights-of-way. The new facilities would add 746,500 decatherms of capacity to Algonquin's east-west transportation capacity. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would postpone the proposed action, the use of Alternative fuels, and Alternative pipeline routes and compressor station sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed modification of the existing Algonquin natural gas transmission system would increase the diversity of supply by accessing natural gas from liquefied natural gas 0projects recently constructed or currently under construction offshore of Massachusetts and in New Brunswick, Canada. The project would also add natural gas supply reliability and security to Algonquin's existing system by eliminating bottlenecks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 492.1 acre, of which 35 percent is open land, 32 percent forested land, 23 percent commercial or industrial land, eight percent residential land, two percent farmland, and less than one percent open water. Operation of the pipeline system additions would permanently affect 172 acres, including 71 acres within existing rights-of-way and 80.8 acres within new permanent rights-of-way. The system would traverse 39 waterbodies, including 22 perennial and 17 intermittent flows. Fourteen of the affected perennial and two of the affected intermittent waterbodies constitute viable fish habitat. Two major waterbodies, the Weymouth Fore and Shentucket rivers, would be affected, though horizontal directional drilling techniques would be used in both cases to reduce impacts. The pipelines would traverse 137 wetlands, permanently affecting 9.3 acres of wetlands, and 10 vernal pools would be crossed. Other significant sensitive habitats that would be affected would include the Cranberry Brook Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, and Moose Hill Farm. The project could affect the habitat of the tall-nut sedge, a species protected by the state of Massachusetts. The construction work area would be located within 50 feet of 176 structures, of which 127 are residences; 78 of the residences would be located within 25 feet of the work zone. Seven archaeological sites, including three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by the construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 080461, 641 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0277D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Massachusetts KW - New Jersey KW - Rhode Island KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.title=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). AN - 756824766; 13727-080461_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey is proposed. The applicant, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) proposes to modify its existing natural gas transmission system via the following actions: installation of 12.9 miles of 36-inch pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts to extend the I-10 pipeline; installation of 7.5 miles of 36-inch pipeline to replace a segment of the existing 24-inch Q-1 system pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts; replacement of 11 miles of four- and six-inch E-3 system pipeline with 12-inch pipeline; provision of a new 10,319-horsepower compressor station in Bristol County Massachusetts; modification of three existing compressor stations to accommodate bidirectional flow along Algonquin's system; provision of aboveground over-pressure regulation at the existing Fore River and Sharon meter stations and a two regulator stations at the Q-1 system termini in Massachusetts; and installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities, including four mainline valves, two taps, two remote blow-off valves, five pig launchers, and three pig receivers, all in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Compressor stations to b modified to accommodate bidirectional flow include the Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode Island; the Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County, Connecticut; and the Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, new Jersey. The majority of the proposed facilities would be located within or adjacent to Algonquin's existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or NSTAR Electric Company's existing powerline rights-of-way. The new facilities would add 746,500 decatherms of capacity to Algonquin's east-west transportation capacity. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would postpone the proposed action, the use of Alternative fuels, and Alternative pipeline routes and compressor station sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed modification of the existing Algonquin natural gas transmission system would increase the diversity of supply by accessing natural gas from liquefied natural gas 0projects recently constructed or currently under construction offshore of Massachusetts and in New Brunswick, Canada. The project would also add natural gas supply reliability and security to Algonquin's existing system by eliminating bottlenecks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 492.1 acre, of which 35 percent is open land, 32 percent forested land, 23 percent commercial or industrial land, eight percent residential land, two percent farmland, and less than one percent open water. Operation of the pipeline system additions would permanently affect 172 acres, including 71 acres within existing rights-of-way and 80.8 acres within new permanent rights-of-way. The system would traverse 39 waterbodies, including 22 perennial and 17 intermittent flows. Fourteen of the affected perennial and two of the affected intermittent waterbodies constitute viable fish habitat. Two major waterbodies, the Weymouth Fore and Shentucket rivers, would be affected, though horizontal directional drilling techniques would be used in both cases to reduce impacts. The pipelines would traverse 137 wetlands, permanently affecting 9.3 acres of wetlands, and 10 vernal pools would be crossed. Other significant sensitive habitats that would be affected would include the Cranberry Brook Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, and Moose Hill Farm. The project could affect the habitat of the tall-nut sedge, a species protected by the state of Massachusetts. The construction work area would be located within 50 feet of 176 structures, of which 127 are residences; 78 of the residences would be located within 25 feet of the work zone. Seven archaeological sites, including three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by the construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 080461, 641 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0277D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Massachusetts KW - New Jersey KW - Rhode Island KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.title=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). AN - 756824641; 13727-080461_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey is proposed. The applicant, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) proposes to modify its existing natural gas transmission system via the following actions: installation of 12.9 miles of 36-inch pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts to extend the I-10 pipeline; installation of 7.5 miles of 36-inch pipeline to replace a segment of the existing 24-inch Q-1 system pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts; replacement of 11 miles of four- and six-inch E-3 system pipeline with 12-inch pipeline; provision of a new 10,319-horsepower compressor station in Bristol County Massachusetts; modification of three existing compressor stations to accommodate bidirectional flow along Algonquin's system; provision of aboveground over-pressure regulation at the existing Fore River and Sharon meter stations and a two regulator stations at the Q-1 system termini in Massachusetts; and installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities, including four mainline valves, two taps, two remote blow-off valves, five pig launchers, and three pig receivers, all in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Compressor stations to b modified to accommodate bidirectional flow include the Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode Island; the Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County, Connecticut; and the Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, new Jersey. The majority of the proposed facilities would be located within or adjacent to Algonquin's existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or NSTAR Electric Company's existing powerline rights-of-way. The new facilities would add 746,500 decatherms of capacity to Algonquin's east-west transportation capacity. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would postpone the proposed action, the use of Alternative fuels, and Alternative pipeline routes and compressor station sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed modification of the existing Algonquin natural gas transmission system would increase the diversity of supply by accessing natural gas from liquefied natural gas 0projects recently constructed or currently under construction offshore of Massachusetts and in New Brunswick, Canada. The project would also add natural gas supply reliability and security to Algonquin's existing system by eliminating bottlenecks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 492.1 acre, of which 35 percent is open land, 32 percent forested land, 23 percent commercial or industrial land, eight percent residential land, two percent farmland, and less than one percent open water. Operation of the pipeline system additions would permanently affect 172 acres, including 71 acres within existing rights-of-way and 80.8 acres within new permanent rights-of-way. The system would traverse 39 waterbodies, including 22 perennial and 17 intermittent flows. Fourteen of the affected perennial and two of the affected intermittent waterbodies constitute viable fish habitat. Two major waterbodies, the Weymouth Fore and Shentucket rivers, would be affected, though horizontal directional drilling techniques would be used in both cases to reduce impacts. The pipelines would traverse 137 wetlands, permanently affecting 9.3 acres of wetlands, and 10 vernal pools would be crossed. Other significant sensitive habitats that would be affected would include the Cranberry Brook Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, and Moose Hill Farm. The project could affect the habitat of the tall-nut sedge, a species protected by the state of Massachusetts. The construction work area would be located within 50 feet of 176 structures, of which 127 are residences; 78 of the residences would be located within 25 feet of the work zone. Seven archaeological sites, including three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by the construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 080461, 641 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0277D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Massachusetts KW - New Jersey KW - Rhode Island KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.title=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 408 PERMISSION AND 404 PERMIT TO SACRAMENTO AREA FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY FOR THE NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36352596; 13724 AB - PURPOSE: The early implementation of improvements to the perimeter levee system within the Natomas Basin in Sutter and Sacramento counties, California is proposed. The 53,000-acre basin extends from the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers northward from the American River and includes portions of the City of Sacramento as well as portions of the two abovementioned counties. In addition to the American and Sacramento rivers on the south and west of the basin, the basin is bordered on the north by Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and on the east by Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal. The Natomas Basin perimeter levee system was originally created to promote agricultural development within the basin. Flood control has historically been a major concern to agricultural and urban settlers in the Sacramento River basin due to the unique topographical and meteorological factors that make the basin capable of generating very high peak flood discharges. The Natomas Basin is also the site of extensive urban development and the Sacramento International Airport. The basin's remaining agricultural habitat for a number of special wildlife and fish species. Currently proposed improvements would alter the constituent levees such that the system would meet 100-year flood containment criteria developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), design criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state of Arizona for levees comprising the Common Features Project, and design 200-year water surface elevations developed by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the levee improvements, the plan would include associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications. The action alternatives address means of achieving early implementation of the project in its entirety, with the 2008 construction phase addressed in detail and the 2009 and 2010 phases addressed at a general, programmatic level. The preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) would include levee raising and seepage remediation along the NCC south levee, the Sacramento River east levee and the PGCC; erosion control throughout the Natomas Basin System; improvements to major irrigation and drainage infrastructure; habitat creation and management, particularly with respect to habitat for giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk; removal of encroachments from a portion of the water and land size of the Sacramento River; modification the State Route 99/70 crossing of the NCC as necessary to meet FEMA requirements; acquisition of rights-of-way through fee title or easement interest within the project footprint, at borrow sites, and within the flood control system. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any substantial increase in expected annual damaged as new urban development occurred would be minimized or avoided. The flood control projects in the vicinity of the airport would facilitate changes in the management of airport lands that would reduce hazards to aviation safety and use flood control projects to increase the extent of connectivity of lands in Natomas being managed to provide habitat for giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk, and other special-status species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A large number of mature trees would be removed from the land side of the Sacramento River east levee, degrading visual aesthetics in the area. Under one Alternative, removal of a substantial acreage of mature trees from the water side of the Sacramento River levee would add to the significant visual impact and would also result in loss of wildlife corridors, Swainson's hawk nesting, and shaded riverine aquatic habitat; these impacts, however, would not result from the preferred Alternative. Transportation of borrow materials would significant increases truck traffic and the associated emission of air pollutants within the local roadway network in Sutter County during project implementation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0357D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080458, 671 pages and maps, CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - American River KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 408 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=408+PERMISSION+AND+404+PERMIT+TO+SACRAMENTO+AREA+FLOOD+CONTROL+AGENCY+FOR+THE+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=408+PERMISSION+AND+404+PERMIT+TO+SACRAMENTO+AREA+FLOOD+CONTROL+AGENCY+FOR+THE+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HUBLINE/EAST TO WEST PROJECT, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND (DOCKET NOS. PF07-15-000 AND CP08-420-000). AN - 36348366; 13727 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey is proposed. The applicant, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) proposes to modify its existing natural gas transmission system via the following actions: installation of 12.9 miles of 36-inch pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts to extend the I-10 pipeline; installation of 7.5 miles of 36-inch pipeline to replace a segment of the existing 24-inch Q-1 system pipeline in Norfolk County, Massachusetts; replacement of 11 miles of four- and six-inch E-3 system pipeline with 12-inch pipeline; provision of a new 10,319-horsepower compressor station in Bristol County Massachusetts; modification of three existing compressor stations to accommodate bidirectional flow along Algonquin's system; provision of aboveground over-pressure regulation at the existing Fore River and Sharon meter stations and a two regulator stations at the Q-1 system termini in Massachusetts; and installation of appurtenant ancillary facilities, including four mainline valves, two taps, two remote blow-off valves, five pig launchers, and three pig receivers, all in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Compressor stations to b modified to accommodate bidirectional flow include the Burrillville Compressor Station in Providence County, Rhode Island; the Cromwell Compressor Station in Middlesex County, Connecticut; and the Hanover Compressor Station in Morris County, new Jersey. The majority of the proposed facilities would be located within or adjacent to Algonquin's existing pipeline rights-of-way and/or NSTAR Electric Company's existing powerline rights-of-way. The new facilities would add 746,500 decatherms of capacity to Algonquin's east-west transportation capacity. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would postpone the proposed action, the use of Alternative fuels, and Alternative pipeline routes and compressor station sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed modification of the existing Algonquin natural gas transmission system would increase the diversity of supply by accessing natural gas from liquefied natural gas 0projects recently constructed or currently under construction offshore of Massachusetts and in New Brunswick, Canada. The project would also add natural gas supply reliability and security to Algonquin's existing system by eliminating bottlenecks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 492.1 acre, of which 35 percent is open land, 32 percent forested land, 23 percent commercial or industrial land, eight percent residential land, two percent farmland, and less than one percent open water. Operation of the pipeline system additions would permanently affect 172 acres, including 71 acres within existing rights-of-way and 80.8 acres within new permanent rights-of-way. The system would traverse 39 waterbodies, including 22 perennial and 17 intermittent flows. Fourteen of the affected perennial and two of the affected intermittent waterbodies constitute viable fish habitat. Two major waterbodies, the Weymouth Fore and Shentucket rivers, would be affected, though horizontal directional drilling techniques would be used in both cases to reduce impacts. The pipelines would traverse 137 wetlands, permanently affecting 9.3 acres of wetlands, and 10 vernal pools would be crossed. Other significant sensitive habitats that would be affected would include the Cranberry Brook Watershed Area of Critical Environmental Concern, the Moose Hill Wildlife Sanctuary, and Moose Hill Farm. The project could affect the habitat of the tall-nut sedge, a species protected by the state of Massachusetts. The construction work area would be located within 50 feet of 176 structures, of which 127 are residences; 78 of the residences would be located within 25 feet of the work zone. Seven archaeological sites, including three sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected by the construction activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 080461, 641 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0277D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Connecticut KW - Massachusetts KW - New Jersey KW - Rhode Island KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.title=HUBLINE%2FEAST+TO+WEST+PROJECT%2C+CONNECTICUT%2C+MASSACHUSETTS%2C+NEW+JERSEY%2C+AND+RHODE+ISLAND+%28DOCKET+NOS.+PF07-15-000+AND+CP08-420-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 EAST FROM I-15 TO TOWER ROAD, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 36343707; 13726 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 13 miles of Interstate 70 (I-70( between I-25 and Tower Road in east Denver, Colorado is proposed. A component of the national interstate highway system, I70 constitutes the transportation backbone for east-west travel in the Denver region and the state, serving growing development as well as inter-regional and interstate travel. The freeway connects I-25, I270, and I-225. The area is experiencing rapid growth and development, involving substantial increases in residential and employment-related populations due, in part, the the development of Denver International Airport, which is served by the freeway. The demand from various highway users currently exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. Forecasted traffic demand will vastly exceed highway capacity in the Corridor if capacity is not expanded. Moreover, the freeway suffers from accident rates higher than the state average for urban freeways, largely due to congestion and inadequate design. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Built alternatives include the provision of general purpose lanes along the existing alignment; provision of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes along with existing alignment; construction of general purpose lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor; and construction of a combination or general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes on a new alignment within the Corridor. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing I-70 viaduct between Brighton Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard would be reconstructed. Depending on the build Alternative considered, estimated project costs range from $1.26 billion to nearly $2.0 billion. Annual maintenance costs range from $20.6 million to $24.6 million. All cost figures are provided in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: By increasing the capacity and ameliorating infrastructure design flaws, any of the build alternatives would vastly improve traffic movements along the Corridor, generally enhancing the entire transportation network serving commuters, commercial travelers, and tourists in the Denver region. Long-distance travelers passing through Denver would also experience safer conditions and lower travel times than at present. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 198 to 435 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 18 to 93 residences, 42 to 73 businesses, and two to three community markets, with significant community impacts likely in Elyria and Swansea. Alternatives using the existing alignment would require relocation of the Denver Rescue Mission, while the new location alternatives would result in the loss of the Stockyards post office and Denver automobile impoundment facilities. Traffic-related noise levels would increase in Elyria and Swansea under the alternatives using the existing alignment, and in these communities and in Northeast Park Hill, Globeville, and Montbello under the alternatives on new alignment. Social and noise impacts would be experienced disproportionately by minority and low-income communities. From six to 34 of the 141 properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by implementation of one of the build alternatives. Of the 77 parks and recreational facilities within the project study area, only the Swansea Elementary School playground would be affected. Rights-of-way developments would also result in the loss of 219.7 to 237.7 acres of mule deer habitat, 119 to 231 acres of white-tailed deer habitat, 0.7 to 1.54 acre of riparian vegetation, and two acres of wetlands. Increased human activity and noise within the Corridor could degrade the area as habitat for bald eagle and approximately 21 acres of black-tailed prairie dog habitat would be lost; both species are federally protected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Executive Order 12898, 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: 080460, Draft EIS--778 pages and maps, Alternative Maps-77 pages (oversize), CD-ROM, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CO-EIS-08-02-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Community Facilities KW - Demography KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36343707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=I-70+EAST+FROM+I-15+TO+TOWER+ROAD%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boulder, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2006). AN - 16375736; 13725 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 287-acre marine container terminal on the Cooper River at the Charleston Naval Complex of North Charleston, South Carolina are proposed. A recently updated forecast of container cargo throughput for the naval complex would grow from 1.65 million TEU (one TEU is equivalent to one standard 20-foot shipping container) in 2004 to 4.0 million TEU in 2025. Moreover, new facilities are necessary to accommodate the recently developed post-Panamax class of cargo ships. Estimates indicate that the nine berths at the three existing complex terminals have a maximum annual capacity of 2.6 million TEU. Under the proposal forwarded by the by the South Carolina State Ports Authority via a final EIS issued in December 2006, the Authority would develop 11.5 acres of wharf structure on the west side of Cooper River, with a berthing area 40 feet deep and 150 feet wide. The wharf would be include six container cranes with a minimum outreach of 200 feet. The wharf would include three berths with an overall length of 3,510 linear feet. The applicant would also develop 225 acres of lighted, paved area for container processing and storage upland of the wharf and 40 acres of paved area and buildings for support gate structures and other operations and facilities. To provide adequate access to the terminal, the South Carolina Department of Transportation would construct a four-lane access road from the entrance of the port facility to Interstate 26 (I-26), reconstruct the interchange at Exit 217 on the interstate, construct a four-lane roadway at Stromboli Avenue to provide eastbound and westbound access to I-26 via the port access road; reopen Stromboli Avenue to through traffic, and construct a second bridge across Shipyard Creek from the local access roadway to Tidewater Road. The project would include the development of 25 acres of stormwater management facilities at the project site, focused on a stormwater treatment pond along the south side of the terminal. In addition to the proposed development, the final EIS of considered a No Action Alternative, an Alternative that would not require federal permit authorization, and terminal site alternatives. This addendum to the final EIS provides additional data concerning air quality and meteorology pertinent to the project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would help provide for state-owned port facilities that meet the reasonably projected throughput capacity for containerized cargo in the state of South Carolina for the next 20 years. Development of the proposed project would probably spur ancillary commercial and industrial development within the region; it would be likely that such development would occur in appropriately zoned areas. Maritime support industries would be most likely to located in the Port Overlay District established by the City of North Charleston for such purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would transform a site that is largely undeveloped and natural to a site containing heavy industrial uses; however, this impact would be in keeping with the current zoning and planned redevelopment of the naval complex. Approximately 2.4 acres of freshwater marsh, 56.6 acres of open-water habitat, 9.6 acres of tidal wetlands would be displaced by the terminal. Essential fish habitat in the displaced by the project footprint would 2.1 acres of intertidal mudflats, 2.4 acres of shallow subtidal water, and 52.1 acres of deep water habitat. Fish habitat impacts would also include deepening of 77.9 acres of estuarine water column. Road construction would displace 4.2 acres of tidal marsh associated with Shipyard Creek, and 0.4 acre of freshwater wetlands. Nonmaritime uses in the Port Overlay District could experience pressure to relocate from parties interested in maritime support services. Commercial and some residential property would be acquired and displaced due to access road rights-of-way development. The project would affect two Cold War-era properties at the naval complex (buildings 643 and 686), but these are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Visual aesthetics from a downstream recreational marine would be degraded somewhat. Shoreline processes and floodplain capacity would be negatively affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0171D, Volume 30, Number 1 and 07-0002F, Volume 31, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 080459, 51 pages, November 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Estuaries KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Navigation KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Charleston Naval Complex KW - South Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28ADDENDUM+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Charleston, South Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, I-79 TO MON/FAYETTE EXPRESSWAY (PA TURNPIKE 43), WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 16391119; 13722 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 15-mile-long four-lane, limited access toll road extending from Interstate 79 (I-79) near the Allegheny/Washington County border to the Mon/Fayette Expressway (Pennsylvania Turnpike 43) in Washington County, Pennsylvania is proposed. Many of the two-lane roads available for east-west travel through the project area do not meet current design standards. Congestion affects travel on all roadways serving the area. The roadway network is characterized by numerous safety deficiencies. The study Corridor for what would be referred to as the Southern Beltway has been divided into two sections, with several Alternative alignments under consideration for each; a No Action Alterative is also considered in this final EIS. The typical roadway cross-section would feature two 12-foot travel lanes flanked by 12-foot outside shoulders, and separated by a 60-foot median, which would be flanked by eight-foot inside shoulders. Depending on the alterative chosen, capital costs of the project range from $596 million to $796 million in 2007 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Southern Beltway would provide transportation mobility and safety improvements, relieve congestion, and improve east-west access and mobility in the proposed circumferential Corridor south of Pittsburg. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative chosen, rights-of-way development would require the displacement of 95 to 227 residences, three to 14 businesses, and, possibly, one community facility and one public park. Encroachment into 15 to 25 farming operations would result in the displacement of 155 to 206 acres of productive farmland. With respect to natural resources, the project would traverse 52 to 70 streams, displace 2.4 to 4.6 acres of wetlands across 62 to 117 sites, 7.7 to 23.6 acres of floodplain, 412 to 583 acres of forest, and 111 to 152 acres of rangeland. Construction workers could encounter contaminated materials at six to 10 sites along the Corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0076D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 080456, Final EIS--677 pages; Plates--71 pages (oversize), Comments and Responses--246 pages, CD-ROM, November 4, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Community Facilities KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/16391119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+I-79+TO+MON%2FFAYETTE+EXPRESSWAY+%28PA+TURNPIKE+43%29%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+I-79+TO+MON%2FFAYETTE+EXPRESSWAY+%28PA+TURNPIKE+43%29%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2009-07-16 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Invasive Species Biology, Control, and Research: Part 1: Kudzu (Pueraria montana) AN - 20367246; 9047441 AB - A 2007 Report to Congress documented a crucial factor in the loss of Army training land: uncontrolled vegetation growth. Of the 53 installations surveyed for the report, 30 reported that approximately 12 percent of their training lands were unusable for certain types of training. Uncontrolled vegetation was a source of such problems as an inability to conduct mounted and dismounted maneuver training, interference with equipment used in line-of-sight training, safety issues, and damage to equipment and structures. Of the 11 plant species (or groups) identified by installations as "uncontrolled vegetation," six were invasive plants, of which the two invasive plants most commonly identified were Kudzu (Pueraria montana) and Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora). This work provides a snapshot of current research and scientific knowledge related to the invasive plant species Kudzu, its impact on the Army, and a concise representation of control technologies for military land managers. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Guertin, P J AU - Denight, M AU - Gebhart, D L AU - Nelson, L Y1 - 2008/11// PY - 2008 DA - Nov 2008 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Rosa multiflora KW - Laboratory testing KW - Training KW - Congress KW - Vegetation KW - Pueraria KW - invasive plants KW - invasive species KW - Plants KW - Military KW - USA, Montana KW - Technology KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20367246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Sustainability+Science+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Guertin%2C+P+J%3BDenight%2C+M%3BGebhart%2C+D+L%3BNelson%2C+L&rft.aulast=Guertin&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2008-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Invasive+Species+Biology%2C+Control%2C+and+Research%3A+Part+1%3A+Kudzu+%28Pueraria+montana%29&rft.title=Invasive+Species+Biology%2C+Control%2C+and+Research%3A+Part+1%3A+Kudzu+%28Pueraria+montana%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of residence time on summer nitrate uptake in mississippi river flow-regulated backwaters AN - 20291967; 8904084 AB - Nitrate uptake may be improved in regulated floodplain rivers by increasing hydrological connectivity to backwaters. We examined summer nitrate uptake in a series of morphologically similar backwaters on the Upper Mississippi River receiving flow-regulated nitrate loads via gated culverts. Flows into individual backwaters were held constant over a summer period but varied in the summers of 2003 and 2004 to provide a range of hydraulic loads and residence times (). The objectives were to determine optimum loading and for maximum summer uptake. Higher flow adjustment led to increased loading but lower and contact time for uptake. For highest flows, was less than 1 day resulting in lower uptake rates (Unet4000m). For low flows, was greater than 5 days and U% approached 100%, but Unet was 200mgm-2day-1. Snet was carboxyl > raw), especially in combination with natural organic matter (NOM). Stabilized MWNTs in high concentrations of NOM provided relevance for water transport and toxicity studies. Aqueous exposures to raw MWNTs decreased Ceriodaphnia dubia viability, but such effects were not observed during exposure to functionalized MWNTs (> 80 mg/L). Sediment exposures of the amphipods Leptocheirus plumulosus and Hyalella azteca to different sizes of sediment-borne carbon particles at high concentration indicated mortality increased as particle size decreased, although raw MWNTs induced lower mortality (median lethal concentration [LC50], 50 to >264 g/kg) than carbon black (LC50, 18-40 g/kg) and activated carbon (LC50, 12-29 g/kg). Our findings stress that it may be inappropriate to classify all NTs into one category in terms of their environmental regulation. JF - Environmental toxicology and chemistry AU - Kennedy, Alan J AU - Hull, Matthew S AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AU - Dontsova, Katerina M AU - Chappell, Mark A AU - Gunter, Jonas C AU - Weiss, Charles A AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA. alan.j.kennedy@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 1932 EP - 1941 VL - 27 IS - 9 SN - 0730-7268, 0730-7268 KW - Suspensions KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants KW - Water KW - 059QF0KO0R KW - Index Medicus KW - Microscopy, Electron, Transmission KW - Animals KW - Ultrasonics KW - Amphipoda KW - Particle Size KW - Water -- chemistry KW - Biological Assay KW - Data Interpretation, Statistical KW - Daphnia KW - Image Processing, Computer-Assisted KW - Surface Properties KW - Biological Availability KW - Water Pollutants -- toxicity KW - Water Pollutants -- chemistry KW - Nanotubes -- chemistry KW - Nanotubes -- toxicity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/69877832?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.atitle=Factors+influencing+the+partitioning+and+toxicity+of+nanotubes+in+the+aquatic+environment.&rft.au=Kennedy%2C+Alan+J%3BHull%2C+Matthew+S%3BSteevens%2C+Jeffery+A%3BDontsova%2C+Katerina+M%3BChappell%2C+Mark+A%3BGunter%2C+Jonas+C%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+A&rft.aulast=Kennedy&rft.aufirst=Alan&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1932&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.issn=07307268&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2009-01-09 N1 - Date created - 2008-12-15 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Results of an airborne vertical magnetic gradient demonstration, New Mexico AN - 50559016; 2008-132775 AB - In April 2007, Battelle demonstrated two new airborne vertical magnetic gradiometer systems for unexploded ordnance (UXO) mapping and detection at the Former Kirtland Precision Bombing Range, New Mexico. The primary benefit of vertical gradient is that it reduces helicopter noise, improving signal-to-noise by about a factor of 5 relative to the ORAGS-Arrowhead total field system (Gamey et al., 2004). The two systems are called VG-16 and VG-22. VG-22 was designed for high-resolution detection of small ordnance under good field conditions, while VG-16 was designed with a wider swath for better production rates on wide-area assessment surveys or where conditions require slightly higher altitudes. Performance of the systems was assessed in a 500-acre test area in which site conditions were well known from previous surveys. This area was deemed relatively quiet magnetically, and was prepared by an unaffiliated contractor which buried 88 small ordnance items at locations that were unknown to Battelle. This "blind-seeded" area included projectiles as large as 155 mm and as small as 40 mm, as well as mortars. VG-22 data yielded 90% detection and VG-16 data demonstrated 67% detection of the emplaced items. In addition to these individually emplaced items, ten pairs of 60-mm mortars were emplaced to assess sensitivity to closely spaced ordnance. The ability to distinguish these mortars as separate items confirmed expectations based on a published approach. For those 60-mm mortars that are expected to appear as individual anomalies, probability of detection was the same as for widely spaced items. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Doll, William E AU - Sheehan, Jacob R AU - Gamey, T Jeffrey AU - Beard, Les P AU - Norton, Jeannemarie A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 277 EP - 290 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - Kirkland Precision Bombing Range KW - geophysical surveys KW - vertical-gradient methods KW - Bernalillo County New Mexico KW - vertical orientation KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - New Mexico KW - depth KW - noise KW - gravity methods KW - military geology KW - explosives KW - surveys KW - signal-to-noise ratio KW - airborne methods KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50559016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Results+of+an+airborne+vertical+magnetic+gradient+demonstration%2C+New+Mexico&rft.au=Doll%2C+William+E%3BSheehan%2C+Jacob+R%3BGamey%2C+T+Jeffrey%3BBeard%2C+Les+P%3BNorton%2C+Jeannemarie&rft.aulast=Doll&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=277&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.277 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; Bernalillo County New Mexico; depth; explosives; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; gravity methods; Kirkland Precision Bombing Range; magnetic methods; military geology; New Mexico; noise; signal-to-noise ratio; surveys; unexploded ordnance; United States; vertical orientation; vertical-gradient methods DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.277 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Introduction to this UXO special issue of JEEG AN - 50558983; 2008-132763 JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Llopis, Jose L A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - v EP - vi PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - military geology KW - detection KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - buried features KW - remediation KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50558983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Introduction+to+this+UXO+special+issue+of+JEEG&rft.au=Llopis%2C+Jose+L&rft.aulast=Llopis&rft.aufirst=Jose&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=v&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.fmv L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - buried features; detection; geophysical methods; military geology; remediation; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.fmv ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new high-sensitivity subsurface electromagnetic sensing system; Part I, System design AN - 50558632; 2008-132773 AB - We have developed a prototype frequency-domain electromagnetic geophysical system that currently has a usable dynamic range of 134 dB. In order to achieve this large dynamic range, we substantially reduced the measurement errors that are common limiting factors in achieving high measurement sensitivity. First, we reduced the measurement error caused by mechanical deformations of the measurement apparatus from 70 ppm to the order of 0.1 ppm. Second, as a result of developing a novel Alternating Target Antenna Coupling (ATAC) measurement method, we reduced the temporal drift from 400 ppm to the order of 0.1 ppm over a 50 min time period. Finally, as a result of using transmitter and receiver monitoring and dynamic calibration, we reduced the percentage error in the Real and Imaginary components of the target response, measured over a 105-minute period of time, from 5% and 80% to 0.5% and 2%, respectively. By increasing the TX moment, further increasing the TX/RX stability, and reducing the RX noise level, we estimate that the full potential of the ATAC system can achieve a usable dynamic range of the order of 200 dB. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Sternberg, Ben K AU - Krichenko, Oleg AU - Dvorak, Steven L A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 247 EP - 261 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - high-resolution methods KW - errors KW - geophysical methods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - frequency KW - accuracy KW - depth KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50558632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=A+new+high-sensitivity+subsurface+electromagnetic+sensing+system%3B+Part+I%2C+System+design&rft.au=Sternberg%2C+Ben+K%3BKrichenko%2C+Oleg%3BDvorak%2C+Steven+L&rft.aulast=Sternberg&rft.aufirst=Ben&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=247&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.247 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; depth; electromagnetic methods; errors; frequency; geophysical methods; high-resolution methods DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.247 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Intra-inversion filtering for overlapping magnetic fields of unexploded ordnance (UXO), clutter and geology AN - 50558605; 2008-132766 AB - Magnetic surveys of sites contaminated with unexploded ordnance (UXO) locate ferromagnetic sources and discriminate between UXO and some non-UXO (clutter) that can be left in place. High-pass, two-dimensional (2-D) intra-inversion filtering (IIF) is introduced as a partial solution to the vexing problem of overlapping fields of UXO, clutter, and geologic sources. IIF can severely distort target fields while ameliorating effects of overlapping fields. The filter applied to the input data is also applied to unit dipole fields that are used in the inversion algorithm to extract the position, strength, and orientation of the best-fit magnetic dipole. A least-squares converging grid-search inversion, with successive passes using smaller dipole search volumes, is more efficient than an exhaustive search. Between passes, a polynomial is fit to objective function values and the next search volume is centered on the node nearest the minimum of the polynomial. Intra-inversion gradient estimation improves some inversions relative to standard procedures of intra-inversion dc bias estimation of background fields. A flag-node option uses field values at only those nodes nearest to magnetometer stations. To accommodate flag-node data, filter input data windows, data gaps, and/or survey edges, a spatially variable edge-adaptive, gapped, gradient-nulling (EAGGN) filter is derived from a progenitor symmetric, zero-dc filter. It shares with its progenitor the property of nulling any constant-gradient field. EAGGN filter coefficients depend on the distribution of flagged nodes in a filter application window centered on each output location. To overcome problems of swath-overlap noise, single-swath EAGGN filters are applied separately to data from individual swaths of magnetometer arrays. Effectiveness of IIF is demonstrated for anomalies in a magnetic survey of the Blind Test Area of the UXO Standardized Test Site at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers emplaced UXO simulants and clutter. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Rene, Raymond M AU - Kim, Ki Young AU - Park, Chan Hong A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 147 EP - 164 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - statistical analysis KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic anomalies KW - unexploded ordnance KW - inverse problem KW - magnetic field KW - filters KW - electromagnetic induction KW - depth KW - burial KW - least-squares analysis KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50558605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Intra-inversion+filtering+for+overlapping+magnetic+fields+of+unexploded+ordnance+%28UXO%29%2C+clutter+and+geology&rft.au=Rene%2C+Raymond+M%3BKim%2C+Ki+Young%3BPark%2C+Chan+Hong&rft.aulast=Rene&rft.aufirst=Raymond&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=147&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.147 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 31 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - burial; depth; electromagnetic induction; filters; geophysical methods; inverse problem; least-squares analysis; magnetic anomalies; magnetic field; statistical analysis; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.147 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Live-site discrimination analysis of polarization tensor parameters extracted from time-domain sensors AN - 50558017; 2008-132768 AB - In this paper, we compare the discrimination potential of feature vectors extracted from polarization tensor fits to two types of time-domain electromagnetic data collected at two live-sites: a Geonics EM61 metal detector with 4 time-channels and a Geonics EM63 with 26 channels spanning a longer time-range. Pervasive on the first live-site were non-ferrous adapters, which comprised almost 40% of the items excavated. The discrimination challenge was to identify larger ferrous unexploded ordnance and smaller 40 mm grenades while minimizing excavations of adapters. For the EM61, the relative size and decay rate of the primary and secondary polarizations allowed many adapters to be excluded from the dig list. The standard deviation of the magnetic field data in a 0.5-m radius around the center of the anomaly was also a highly effective feature for discriminating against adapters. For the EM63, the decay of the secondary polarization of the adapters was significantly different than that of any of the UXO. Consequently, the derived polarization parameters were very effective in discriminating both UXO and 40-mm grenades from the adapters. The longer measurement time of the EM63 resulted in superior discrimination performance to the EM61 and obviated the need for supplemental magnetic data. At the second live-site we compare EM63 datasets collected in both detection and cued-interrogation modes. The primary and secondary polarizations of 37-mm projectiles and MK-23 practice bombs found at the site were more tightly clustered for the cued-interrogation data and agreed closely with previously derived test-stand values. In addition, the secondary and tertiary polarizations were in close agreement for the radially-symmetric ordnance, so that a feature related to the difference of these polarizations has good discrimination potential. This was not the case for the discrimination mode data, where there were often large differences between the secondary and tertiary polarizations. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Billings, Stephen D AU - Beran, Laurens AU - Pasion, Leonard R AU - Oldenburg, Douglas W A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 177 EP - 191 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - polarization KW - Onslow County North Carolina KW - discriminant analysis KW - geophysical surveys KW - three-dimensional models KW - statistical analysis KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - Camp Lejeune KW - magnetic field KW - military geology KW - explosives KW - metals KW - North Carolina KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - time domain analysis KW - instruments KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50558017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Live-site+discrimination+analysis+of+polarization+tensor+parameters+extracted+from+time-domain+sensors&rft.au=Billings%2C+Stephen+D%3BBeran%2C+Laurens%3BPasion%2C+Leonard+R%3BOldenburg%2C+Douglas+W&rft.aulast=Billings&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=177&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.177 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Camp Lejeune; discriminant analysis; electromagnetic methods; explosives; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; instruments; magnetic field; magnetic methods; metals; military geology; North Carolina; Onslow County North Carolina; polarization; statistical analysis; surveys; three-dimensional models; time domain analysis; unexploded ordnance; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.177 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Portable magnetic/frequency domain electromagnetic induction sensor system development AN - 50553733; 2008-132772 AB - An unexploded ordnance (UXO) survey instrument that simultaneously collects total field magnetic data and frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM) induction data was developed and tested for the detection and characterization of buried UXO. The system is comprised of an FDEM sensor operating at 9.8 kHz and a cesium vapor magnetometer. The system was initially tested in dynamic survey (detection) and static cued survey (characterization) modes at the Naval Research Laboratory Blossom Point UXO test facility in Maryland. During these tests, electromagnetic (EM) induced bias in the magnetic data was mitigated by physically offsetting the magnetometer from the EM transmitter coils. In the dynamic survey, the aggregate performance exceeded the detection rates for the individual component sensor technologies. The cued analysis tests showed that target features can be determined by using model-based analyses, and the location estimate errors provided by these analyses were consistently better than the dynamic survey results. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Wright, David AU - Bennett, Hollis H, Jr AU - Ballard, John H AU - Fields, Morris P AU - DeMoss, Tere A AU - Butler, Dwain K A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 237 EP - 245 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - Charles County Maryland KW - geophysical surveys KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - magnetometers KW - sensor sensitivity tests KW - magnetic field KW - frequency domain analysis KW - depth KW - burial KW - La Plata Maryland KW - military geology KW - Naval Research Laboratory KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - Maryland KW - instruments KW - electromagnetic induction KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50553733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Portable+magnetic%2Ffrequency+domain+electromagnetic+induction+sensor+system+development&rft.au=Wright%2C+David%3BBennett%2C+Hollis+H%2C+Jr%3BBallard%2C+John+H%3BFields%2C+Morris+P%3BDeMoss%2C+Tere+A%3BButler%2C+Dwain+K&rft.aulast=Wright&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=237&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.237 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - burial; Charles County Maryland; depth; electromagnetic induction; electromagnetic methods; frequency domain analysis; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; instruments; La Plata Maryland; magnetic field; magnetometers; Maryland; military geology; Naval Research Laboratory; sensor sensitivity tests; surveys; unexploded ordnance; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.237 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Magnetic response of clustered UXO targets AN - 50553705; 2008-132770 AB - The objective of many recent UXO surveys has been described as "wide-area assessment" with the purpose of obtaining better definition of a known problem area. The targets of interest are clusters of ordnance, fragments and debris which are all indicators of greater contamination, higher risk of UXO hazard and higher remediation or construction costs. This is a different problem from the detection and discrimination of individual anomalies. This paper provides a definition of a "cluster" based on the amount of overlap between individual dipole signatures. In total field surveys, magnetic anomalies overlap significantly and show an increased amplitude response once the individual sources are spaced closer than 0.5 times the sensor height. When this condition is extended over a large area, such as the center of a target site, the result can be comparable to a horizontal sheet of dipoles. The equations to simulate a horizontal sheet are derived, and from these the relative density of targets may be calculated from the measured data by assuming a nominal target moment. Two field tests support both the qualitative and quantitative predictions. Extending this concept to field practice, we examine some of the implications for standard operational procedures. For example, if we accept that QA/QC metrics should represent the targets of interest, then we should require wide-area assessment surveys to create impractically large grids of surface frag. Likewise, for detection of clusters the concepts of detection probability and search radius based on single items are irrelevant. Discrimination techniques that rely on dipole fitting will be extremely inaccurate. Instead, QA parameters and models suitable for horizontal sheets will have to be derived. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Gamey, T Jeffrey A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 211 EP - 221 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - spatial distribution KW - military geology KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - magnetic anomalies KW - unexploded ordnance KW - signal-to-noise ratio KW - accuracy KW - dipole moment KW - depth KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50553705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Magnetic+response+of+clustered+UXO+targets&rft.au=Gamey%2C+T+Jeffrey&rft.aulast=Gamey&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=211&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.211 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. geol. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; data processing; depth; dipole moment; geophysical methods; magnetic anomalies; military geology; signal-to-noise ratio; spatial distribution; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.211 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new high-sensitivity subsurface electromagnetic sensing system; Part II, Measurement results AN - 50553347; 2008-132774 AB - In a previous paper, we discussed the design of a new electromagnetic measurement system that employed an Alternating Target Antenna Coupling (ATAC) method to greatly improve the sensitivity and stability of the measurement system. In this paper, we demonstrate this new measurement system by applying it to the detection of various targets, including unexploded ordnance (UXO). First we demonstrate that this new measurement method increases survey efficiency because a richer data set is acquired at each measurement location. Our measurement results show that our current system will detect a standard pipe target at a 2.0-m depth below the earth's surface, which is 0.5-m deeper than the 1.5-m detection depth achieved by current state-of-the-art systems. When the full potential of the ATAC system is realized, we estimate that the projected depth of detection may increase to as much as 9 m. We also show that the measured responses of UXO are different based on the UXO's shape and material composition. The measurement results obtained with our current prototype show that the maximum range for detection of an 81-mm mortar and an 84-mm cannon projectile MK31 to be up to 1.25 m. When the full potential of the ATAC system is realized, we estimate that the projected depth of detection for these targets may increase to as much as 5 m. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Krichenko, Oleg AU - Sternberg, Ben K AU - Dvorak, Steven L A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 263 EP - 275 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - high-resolution methods KW - experimental studies KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - magnetic field KW - depth KW - measurement KW - errors KW - metals KW - mathematical methods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - corrections KW - accuracy KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50553347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=A+new+high-sensitivity+subsurface+electromagnetic+sensing+system%3B+Part+II%2C+Measurement+results&rft.au=Krichenko%2C+Oleg%3BSternberg%2C+Ben+K%3BDvorak%2C+Steven+L&rft.aulast=Krichenko&rft.aufirst=Oleg&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=263&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.263 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; corrections; depth; electromagnetic methods; errors; experimental studies; geophysical methods; high-resolution methods; magnetic field; mathematical methods; measurement; metals; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.263 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - UXO special issue of JEEG AN - 50553305; 2008-132762 JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 115 EP - 312 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - military geology KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50553305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=115&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UXO+special+issue+of+JEEG&rft.title=UXO+special+issue+of+JEEG&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Individual papers are cited separately N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - geophysical methods; military geology; unexploded ordnance ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Absolute calibration of EMI measurements and application to soil magnetic susceptibility inference AN - 50521364; 2008-132771 AB - This paper presents a method for determining a conversion factor for electromagnetic induction (EMI) survey measurements so that fields received in an instrument's native units can be translated into standard ("absolute") EM units. The method is non-invasive, requiring only a rudimentary characterization of the instrument, such as loop geometry and the basic nature of the output such as the magnetic field, differencing of magnetic field, or time derivative of magnetic field. It does not require knowledge of the device's internal electrical engineering features, such as amplification, filtering, or transfer functions between components. The technique proceeds by comparing data from controlled measurements to model results, and thus allows one to do similar comparisons henceforth. As an example application and reasonableness check, we use a particular frequency domain (FD) instrument to infer soil magnetic susceptibility value in situ directly from survey data. The same methodology is applied to a new time domain (TD) instrument. This allows validation of the basic scaling methodology via benchmark cases and also illustrates its transferability. Conversion of data from both instrument types into standard units, for measurements from the same soil, illuminates the contrasting nature of the soil responses to TD and FD sensors. It also points out the fundamentally different magnitudes of different components of soil magnetic susceptibility in the soil studied relating to instantaneous response and relaxation response. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Zhang, Beijia AU - O'Neill, Kevin AU - Kong, Jin Au A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 223 EP - 235 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - soils KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - characterization KW - unexploded ordnance KW - paleomagnetism KW - frequency KW - magnetic field KW - measurement KW - magnetic properties KW - models KW - factors KW - metals KW - mathematical methods KW - magnetic susceptibility KW - time domain analysis KW - algorithms KW - electromagnetic induction KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50521364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Absolute+calibration+of+EMI+measurements+and+application+to+soil+magnetic+susceptibility+inference&rft.au=Zhang%2C+Beijia%3BO%27Neill%2C+Kevin%3BKong%2C+Jin+Au&rft.aulast=Zhang&rft.aufirst=Beijia&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=223&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.223 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; characterization; electrical methods; electromagnetic induction; factors; frequency; geophysical methods; magnetic field; magnetic properties; magnetic susceptibility; mathematical methods; measurement; metals; models; paleomagnetism; soils; time domain analysis; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.223 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - The geology of Burma (Myanmar); an annotated bibliography of Burma's geology, geography and earth science AN - 50426723; 2009-049616 AB - A bibliography on Burma prepared by the Topographic Engineering Center (TEC) to assist with humanitarian efforts offered by the US Government after the devastating Cyclone Nargis hit Burma on May 2, 2008. As such, this bibliography covers items of interest to disaster engineers and emergency planners, including citations on topography, transportation, water, medical concerns, and security. JF - The geology of Burma (Myanmar); an annotated bibliography of Burma's geology, geography and earth science AU - Hadden, R Lee Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 312 KW - soils KW - hydrology KW - mining KW - Far East KW - geologic hazards KW - mapping KW - areal geology KW - bibliography KW - engineering geology KW - Burma KW - topography KW - geography KW - Asia KW - land use KW - climate KW - 13:Areal geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50426723?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=Hadden%2C+R+Lee&rft.aulast=Hadden&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+geology+of+Burma+%28Myanmar%29%3B+an+annotated+bibliography+of+Burma%27s+geology%2C+geography+and+earth+science&rft.title=The+geology+of+Burma+%28Myanmar%29%3B+an+annotated+bibliography+of+Burma%27s+geology%2C+geography+and+earth+science&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 - Availability - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Topographic Engineering Center, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Document feature - sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Cooperative inversion of time domain electromagnetic and magnetometer data for the discrimination of unexploded ordnance AN - 50076113; 2008-132769 AB - Magnetic and electromagnetic induction (EMI) surveys are the primary techniques used for unexploded ordnance (UXO) remediation projects. Magnetometry is a valuable geophysical tool for UXO detection because of the ease of data acquisition and its ability to detect relatively deep targets. However, magnetic data can have large false alarm rates caused by geological noise, and there is an inherent non-uniqueness when trying to determine the orientation, size and shape of a target. EMI surveys, on the other hand, are relatively immune to geologic noise and are more diagnostic for target shape and size but have a reduced depth of investigation. We aim to improve discrimination ability by developing an interpretation method that takes advantage of the strengths of both techniques. We consider cooperative inversion, where information from the inversion of one type of data is used as a constraint for inverting another. We compare the confidence with which we can discriminate UXO from non-UXO targets when inverting the data sets cooperatively, to results from individual inversions. Examples are given of the application of the methodology to time domain electromagnetic induction (TEM) and magnetic data sets collected at the Yuma Proving Ground UXO Standardized Test Site calibration grid and the Former Camp Sibert. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Pasion, Leonard R AU - Billings, Stephen D AU - Kingdon, Kevin A AU - Oldenburg, Douglas W AU - Lhomme, Nicolas AU - Jacobson, Jon A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 193 EP - 210 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - Stokes Mortar KW - geophysical surveys KW - Saint Clair County Alabama KW - magnetometers KW - Alabama KW - magnetic field KW - remediation KW - magnetic properties KW - military geology KW - explosives KW - Yuma County Arizona KW - electromagnetic methods KW - Camp Sibert KW - time domain analysis KW - electromagnetic induction KW - Yuma Proving Ground KW - geophysical methods KW - Etowah County Alabama KW - unexploded ordnance KW - inverse problem KW - direct problem KW - metals KW - mathematical methods KW - Arizona KW - surveys KW - field studies KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50076113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Cooperative+inversion+of+time+domain+electromagnetic+and+magnetometer+data+for+the+discrimination+of+unexploded+ordnance&rft.au=Pasion%2C+Leonard+R%3BBillings%2C+Stephen+D%3BKingdon%2C+Kevin+A%3BOldenburg%2C+Douglas+W%3BLhomme%2C+Nicolas%3BJacobson%2C+Jon&rft.aulast=Pasion&rft.aufirst=Leonard&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=193&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.193 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alabama; Arizona; Camp Sibert; direct problem; electromagnetic induction; electromagnetic methods; Etowah County Alabama; explosives; field studies; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; inverse problem; magnetic field; magnetic properties; magnetometers; mathematical methods; metals; military geology; remediation; Saint Clair County Alabama; Stokes Mortar; surveys; time domain analysis; unexploded ordnance; United States; Yuma County Arizona; Yuma Proving Ground DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.193 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of performance of airborne magnetic and transient electromagnetic systems for ordnance detection and mapping AN - 50075001; 2008-132776 AB - Magnetic and electromagnetic data collected by helicopter boom-mounted systems at three different sites permit direct comparison of the systems as to their suitability for buried ordnance detection, mapping, and discrimination. Airborne boom-mounted magnetic systems are at a more advanced stage of development than their electromagnetic counterpart. However, in basaltic terrain, transient electromagnetic systems have proved capable of detecting buried ordnance, whereas magnetic systems may fail to detect ordnance altogether. Magnetic systems use passive sensors and these can be distributed along the boom structure such that dense data can be collected with sensors spaced 1-2 m apart over a broad swath, up to 12-m wide. The ORAGS-TEM electromagnetic system, having only two receivers, must rely on interleaved flight lines to obtain data of a spatial density approaching that of the airborne magnetic systems. The total magnetic fields from unexploded ordnance decays at 1/R (super 3) for total field and its gradient at 1/R (super 4) . This permits adequate signal-to-noise levels to be easily attained for larger ordnance types at survey heights up to seven meters. Active electromagnetic fields decay at between 1/R (super 4) and 1/R (super 6) , depending on ordnance type and sensor geometry, and this constrains current electromagnetic systems to practical survey altitudes of less than three meters. Tests at the Badlands Bombing Range indicate that, in some circumstances, the signal-to-noise for the airborne electromagnetic system exceeds that of airborne magnetic systems, and even ground electromagnetic systems. Because time must be allowed for transmitter current buildup and decay, ORAGS-TEM is not capable of sampling along line at the same spatial density as can magnetic systems. However, the temporal signal decay permits greater opportunity for ordnance discrimination than magnetic measurements. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Beard, Les P AU - Doll, William E AU - Gamey, T Jeffrey AU - Holladay, J Scott AU - Lee, James L C AU - Eklund, Nathan W AU - Sheehan, Jacob R AU - Norton, Jeannemarie A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 291 EP - 305 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - United States KW - geophysical surveys KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - magnetic anomalies KW - Badlands National Park KW - magnetic field KW - depth KW - burial KW - explosives KW - Badlands Bombing Range KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - accuracy KW - South Dakota KW - helicopter methods KW - airborne methods KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50075001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+performance+of+airborne+magnetic+and+transient+electromagnetic+systems+for+ordnance+detection+and+mapping&rft.au=Beard%2C+Les+P%3BDoll%2C+William+E%3BGamey%2C+T+Jeffrey%3BHolladay%2C+J+Scott%3BLee%2C+James+L+C%3BEklund%2C+Nathan+W%3BSheehan%2C+Jacob+R%3BNorton%2C+Jeannemarie&rft.aulast=Beard&rft.aufirst=Les&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=291&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.291 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; airborne methods; Badlands Bombing Range; Badlands National Park; burial; depth; electromagnetic methods; explosives; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; helicopter methods; magnetic anomalies; magnetic field; magnetic methods; South Dakota; surveys; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.291 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new physics-based approach for estimating a buried object's location, orientation and magnetic polarization from EMI data AN - 50074472; 2008-132764 AB - A new physics-based expression is presented for determining a buried object's location, orientation and magnetic polarizibility. The approach assumes the target exhibits a dipolar response and requires only three global values: a magnetic field vector H, a vector potential A and a scalar magnetic potential psi , all at a single location in space. Among these values, only the scattered magnetic field, H, is measurable with current electromagnetic induction sensors. Therefore, in order to estimate the scattered magnetic scalar and vector potentials from data, a numerical technique called the normalized surface magnetic source (NSMS) method is employed. Originally, in the NSMS model, the scattered magnetic field outside the object is reproduced mathematically by equivalent magnetic charges distributed on a three-dimensional (3-D) closed surface. Here, a two-dimensional (2-D) implementation of the NSMS that uses elementary magnetic dipoles, instead of magnetic charges distributed on a planar surface placed under the measurement grid, is utilized. These sources are used to estimate the scattered magnetic field's vector potential A and scalar magnetic potential psi without a priori knowledge of the object's location and orientation. The amplitudes of the NSMS are determined by matching the measured magnetic field with the NSMS modeled field. Once the NSMS amplitudes are determined, H, A, and psi are simulated on or above the measurement grid. The theoretical basis of the new approach, as well as the practical realization of the 2-D NSMS algorithm used to estimate H, A, and psi above the measurement grid from actual data, is illustrated. Several numerical and experimental tests for actual EMI sensors are presented. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Shubitidze, Fridon AU - Karkashadze, David AU - Barrowes, Benjamin E AU - Shamatava, Irma AU - O'Neill, Kevin A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 115 EP - 130 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - orientation KW - numerical models KW - three-dimensional models KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetization KW - magnetic methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - paleomagnetism KW - magnetic field KW - depth KW - geometry KW - physical properties KW - military geology KW - mathematical methods KW - heterogeneity KW - accuracy KW - electromagnetic induction KW - buried features KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50074472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=A+new+physics-based+approach+for+estimating+a+buried+object%27s+location%2C+orientation+and+magnetic+polarization+from+EMI+data&rft.au=Shubitidze%2C+Fridon%3BKarkashadze%2C+David%3BBarrowes%2C+Benjamin+E%3BShamatava%2C+Irma%3BO%27Neill%2C+Kevin&rft.aulast=Shubitidze&rft.aufirst=Fridon&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=115&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.115 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 38 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; buried features; depth; electromagnetic induction; geometry; geophysical methods; heterogeneity; magnetic field; magnetic methods; magnetization; mathematical methods; military geology; numerical models; orientation; paleomagnetism; physical properties; three-dimensional models; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.115 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the quality of electromagnetic data for the discrimination of UXO using figures of merit AN - 50074148; 2008-132767 AB - The need for assessing data quality in unexploded ordnance (UXO) remediation problems arises from two sources. In the planning stage it is essential that the data are acquired in sufficient numbers and with sufficient accuracy to answer the detection or discrimination problem of relevance. At the interpretation stage it is critical to objectively assess whether the data are of sufficient quality to warrant subsequent processing, inversion, and classification. Faced with this practical challenge of defining data quality we propose a Figure of Merit (FOM). FOM is a reliability indicator derived from quantities that affect the quality of data, such as anomaly coverage, line spacing, station spacing, instrument noise, survey location errors, etc. The FOM can also include informative features of the inversion, such as the variance of key model parameters, and thus it depends on the inverse model to be applied. Anomalies associated with higher values of FOM should have increased reliability in classification. Anomalies below a critical threshold will not be suitable for advanced analysis. In this paper, we apply the FOM framework to guide the practical interpretation of field data collected at Camp Sibert as part of the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Discrimination Study Pilot Project. Using simulations of electromagnetic (EM) data for different quality of survey designs, we examine the success rate of inversions to identify key FOM parameters that can explain unreliable inversion results. In this manner, the relationship between FOM and reliability is calibrated on synthetic data before application to the interpretation of field data. A trust index for each inversion can subsequently be included into a discrimination algorithm to help establish a priority dig list. We find that incorporating the FOM in the classification procedure significantly reduces the number of non-UXO items that need to be excavated to recover all UXO. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Lhomme, Nicolas AU - Oldenburg, Douglas W AU - Pasion, Leonard R AU - Sinex, David B AU - Billings, Stephen D A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 165 EP - 176 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - discriminant analysis KW - statistical analysis KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - depth KW - burial KW - remediation KW - military geology KW - factors KW - classification KW - electromagnetic methods KW - figures of merit KW - accuracy KW - arrays KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50074148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Assessing+the+quality+of+electromagnetic+data+for+the+discrimination+of+UXO+using+figures+of+merit&rft.au=Lhomme%2C+Nicolas%3BOldenburg%2C+Douglas+W%3BPasion%2C+Leonard+R%3BSinex%2C+David+B%3BBillings%2C+Stephen+D&rft.aulast=Lhomme&rft.aufirst=Nicolas&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=165&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.165 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; arrays; burial; classification; depth; discriminant analysis; electromagnetic methods; factors; figures of merit; geophysical methods; military geology; remediation; statistical analysis; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.165 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Adaptive focusing for source localization in EMI sensing of metallic objects; a preliminary assessment AN - 50073817; 2008-132765 AB - This paper considers a technique to deal with the problem of detecting and localizing objects in the data processing of electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensing. The technique is formulated using the concept of source power, which in our case is defined as the averaged sum of squared elements of a dipolar polarizabiltiy tensor over a measured time window for a transient electromagnetic (TEM) system. Under the valid dipole approximation to an EMI target, the source is point-like and therefore should occupy a small volume in space. This is the fundamental basis of the energy focusing technique for localizing a source. To achieve a focusing effect on a specified source, a focusing operator is constructed by minimizing the total output power subject to a unity response constraint for that assumed source. A closed-form expression is derived for source power as a function of a source location and can be used blindly without knowledge of the number of objects. The source power is related to data via a data covariance matrix, which in practice is computed with enough data samples. The experiments were conducted with the simulated and real data collected by a standard Geonics EM-63 system. The results, which we regard as a proof-of-concept, show that the focusing technique, under adequate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), is able to accurately localize sources and is promising in EMI array processing. JF - Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics AU - Song, Lin-Ping AU - Oldenburg, Douglas W AU - Pasion, Leonard R AU - Billings, Stephen D A2 - Llopis, Jose L. Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 SP - 131 EP - 145 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Englewood, CO VL - 13 IS - 3 SN - 1083-1363, 1083-1363 KW - transient methods KW - localization KW - geophysical methods KW - unexploded ordnance KW - simulation KW - depth KW - burial KW - remediation KW - metals KW - mathematical methods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - signal-to-noise ratio KW - electromagnetic induction KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50073817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.atitle=Adaptive+focusing+for+source+localization+in+EMI+sensing+of+metallic+objects%3B+a+preliminary+assessment&rft.au=Song%2C+Lin-Ping%3BOldenburg%2C+Douglas+W%3BPasion%2C+Leonard+R%3BBillings%2C+Stephen+D&rft.aulast=Song&rft.aufirst=Lin-Ping&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=131&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geophysics&rft.issn=10831363&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2FJEEG13.3.131 L2 - http://jeeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Abstract, copyright, Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society | Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - burial; depth; electromagnetic induction; electromagnetic methods; geophysical methods; localization; mathematical methods; metals; remediation; signal-to-noise ratio; simulation; transient methods; unexploded ordnance DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/JEEG13.3.131 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Estimating Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet and Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Resulting from Proposed Structures AN - 21146900; 9047442 AB - This study examined the impacts on bottom dissolved oxygen (DO) within canal reaches comprising the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), and the Inner Harbor Navigation Channel (IHNC) resulting from various alternatives for proposed water control structures located within this system. Due to time constraints, an analytical model of reduced form was used for the analysis. Bottom water DO for each canal study reach was predicted using a steady-state, fully mixed, single reactor model. August conditions were imposed for the assessment. Monthly average, bottom flushing flow rates were obtained from hourly bottom velocities output from a three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic and salinity model that was applied to the system during a separate study. Likewise, monthly average surface and bottom salinities were also obtained from the 3D model output. The salinity data were used to estimate vertical eddy diffusivities, which were used in the model for DO exchange between surface and bottom water. The hydrodynamic information was provided for each study reach and for each alternative scenario. The model indicated that low DO conditions should be expected within the system for the structural alternatives being considered. The model showed that several reaches for several scenarios will have DO less than the standard of 4.0 mg/L. The IHNC reach may present a special concern since bottom DO was predicted to be 0.0 mg/L for three alternatives that included structures placed within the GIWW. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Dortch AU - Martin, S K Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Eddy diffusivity KW - Outlets KW - Bottom water KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Surface water KW - Bottom Water KW - Freshwater KW - Gulfs KW - Flow rates KW - Dissolved oxygen KW - Salinity KW - Rivers KW - Laboratory testing KW - Velocity KW - Navigation KW - Harbours KW - Model Studies KW - Channels KW - Salinity data KW - Canals KW - navigation KW - Structure KW - Flushing KW - Waterways KW - Harbors KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana, New Orleans, Mississippi River Gulf Outlet KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08501:General KW - O 2050:Chemical Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21146900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Dortch%3BMartin%2C+S+K&rft.aulast=Dortch&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Estimating+Bottom+Water+Dissolved+Oxygen+in+the+Mississippi+River+Gulf+Outlet+and+Gulf+Intracoastal+Waterway+Resulting+from+Proposed+Structures&rft.title=Estimating+Bottom+Water+Dissolved+Oxygen+in+the+Mississippi+River+Gulf+Outlet+and+Gulf+Intracoastal+Waterway+Resulting+from+Proposed+Structures&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) AN - 21141698; 9047410 AB - This document is one of a series of Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, which provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The development of Regional Supplements is part of a nationwide effort to address regional wetland characteristics and improve the accuracy and efficiency of wetland-delineation procedures. This supplement is applicable to the Arid West Region, which consists of all or portions of 12 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - USA, Utah KW - Rivers KW - Inland waters KW - USA, New Mexico KW - Laboratories KW - Jurisdiction KW - USA, Nevada KW - Harbours KW - USA, Washington KW - USA, Colorado KW - USA, Idaho KW - USA, Arizona KW - Clean Water Act KW - Wetlands KW - USA, California KW - USA, Texas KW - Waterways KW - Harbors KW - Manuals KW - Q2 09281:General KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21141698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Regional+Supplement+to+the+Corps+of+Engineers+Wetland+Delineation+Manual%3A+Arid+West+Region+%28Version+2.0%29&rft.title=Regional+Supplement+to+the+Corps+of+Engineers+Wetland+Delineation+Manual%3A+Arid+West+Region+%28Version+2.0%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region AN - 21134960; 9047411 AB - This document is one of a series of Regional Supplements to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, which provides technical guidance and procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The development of Regional Supplements is part of a nationwide effort to address regional wetland characteristics and improve the accuracy and efficiency of wetland-delineation procedures. This supplement is applicable to the Midwest Region, which consists of all or portions of 14 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Anonymous AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 VL - TR-08 IS - 27 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - USA, South Dakota KW - Rivers KW - Inland waters KW - USA, Illinois KW - Laboratories KW - Jurisdiction KW - USA, Kansas KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Harbours KW - USA, Indiana KW - USA, Oklahoma KW - USA, Iowa KW - USA, Nebraska KW - Clean Water Act KW - Wetlands KW - Waterways KW - USA, Ohio KW - Harbors KW - Manuals KW - Q2 09281:General KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21134960?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%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.atitle=Interim+Regional+Supplement+to+the+Corps+of+Engineers+Wetland+Delineation+Manual%3A+Midwest+Region&rft.au=Anonymous&rft.aulast=Anonymous&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=TR-08&rft.issue=27&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Inland waters; Wetlands; Harbours; Manuals; Rivers; Laboratories; Jurisdiction; Clean Water Act; Waterways; Harbors; USA, South Dakota; USA, Oklahoma; USA, Indiana; USA, Iowa; USA, Illinois; USA, Nebraska; USA, Kansas; USA, Wisconsin; USA, Ohio ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Technical Guidelines for Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediments AN - 21065038; 9046978 AB - This report provides technical guidelines for evaluating environmental dredging as a sediment remedy component. This document supports the Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites, released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 2005, by providing detailed information regarding evaluation of environmental dredging as a remedy component. This document is intended to be applicable to contaminated sediment sites evaluated under various environmental laws and regulatory programs. The intended audience for this report includes all stakeholders potentially involved in evaluating environmental dredging for purposes of a feasibility study, remedial design, and implementation. The scope of this document is limited to the technical aspects of the environmental dredging process itself, but it is important that environmental dredging be integrated with other components such as transport, dewatering, treatment, and rehandling and disposal options. This report covers initial evaluation, pertinent site conditions and sediment characteristics, environmental dredging performance standards, equipment capabilities and selection, evaluation of production, duration, and transport, methods for estimating resuspension, residuals and release, control measures, operating methods and strategies, and monitoring. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Palermo, M R AU - Schroeder, PR AU - Estes, T J AU - Francingues, N R Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Feasibility studies KW - Feasibility KW - Bioremediation KW - Remedies KW - environmental law KW - Environmental factors KW - Evaluation KW - Resuspended sediments KW - guidelines KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Waste disposal KW - stakeholders KW - Sediment pollution KW - Laboratory testing KW - Dewatering KW - Wastes KW - Sediments KW - Environmental protection KW - EPA KW - USA KW - Dredging KW - Standards KW - Waterways KW - Monitoring KW - Hazardous wastes KW - Pollution control KW - SW 3050:Ultimate disposal of wastes KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q2 09183:Physics and chemistry KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21065038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Palermo%2C+M+R%3BSchroeder%2C+PR%3BEstes%2C+T+J%3BFrancingues%2C+N+R&rft.aulast=Palermo&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Technical+Guidelines+for+Environmental+Dredging+of+Contaminated+Sediments&rft.title=Technical+Guidelines+for+Environmental+Dredging+of+Contaminated+Sediments&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Effects of Hurricane Katrina-Related Levee Failures on Wetland Sediments AN - 21064630; 9047345 AB - The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, conducted a study to determine the extent to which Katrina floodwaters in the New Orleans area may have had impacts on wildlife habitat and other biological resources in surrounding areas. These experiments were conducted as part of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET), which is investigating environmental impacts originating from the failure of the hurricane protection system to perform as designed around New Orleans, Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. This report presents data regarding the effects of pumped floodwaters on sediment chemistry and benthic invertebrate toxicity near pumping stations that discharged floodwaters into marshes near Chalmette and Violet, Louisiana. Spatial trends were observed for concentrations of chemicals in sediment. Chemical contamination of sediments was visible and appeared to have trends among sample location groups (e.g., outfall locations, wastewater treatment plant, canals, and wetlands); however, these trends were not always consistent with the bioassay results. A comparison of the sediment chemistry data from this study with two other studies reporting concentrations of chemicals in sediments within the city of New Orleans suggested that sediments and associated contaminants present within the levees were not pumped into the marsh in appreciable quantities. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Suedel, B AU - Steevens, J AU - Kennedy, A AU - Brasfield, S Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Chemicals KW - Fluvial Sediments KW - Failures KW - Wastewater treatment KW - Environmental factors KW - invertebrates KW - spatial distribution KW - USA, Louisiana KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Pumping stations KW - Wetlands KW - Floodwater KW - Urban areas KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Sediment pollution KW - Laboratory testing KW - Laboratories KW - Wildlife KW - Environmental impact KW - Levees KW - Marshes KW - Toxicity KW - sediment chemistry KW - USA, Louisiana, New Orleans KW - Sediments KW - Outfalls KW - Canals KW - Hurricanes KW - Bioassays KW - Water Pollution Effects KW - Research programs KW - O 4020:Pollution - Organisms/Ecology/Toxicology KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q2 09183:Physics and chemistry KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21064630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aquatic+Science+%26+Fisheries+Abstracts+%28ASFA%29+3%3A+Aquatic+Pollution+%26+Environmental+Quality&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Suedel%2C+B%3BSteevens%2C+J%3BKennedy%2C+A%3BBrasfield%2C+S&rft.aulast=Suedel&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Effects+of+Hurricane+Katrina-Related+Levee+Failures+on+Wetland+Sediments&rft.title=Effects+of+Hurricane+Katrina-Related+Levee+Failures+on+Wetland+Sediments&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Capacities of Candidate Herbaceous Plants for Phytoremediation of Soil-based TNT and RDX on Ranges AN - 20367754; 9047335 AB - This report describes a study to quantify the phytoextraction and phytostabilization capacities of TNT and RDX from spiked soil in selected herbaceous species, while paying attention to storage and quality of breakdown products in vegetative plant parts. Ten plant species were included in the experiments. Dose-response experiments formed the basis for evaluating the uptake and tentative in-plant degradation of the soil-based energetics and biomass characteristics of the plants. In these experiments, plants were exposed for periods ranging from 55 to 83 days in the greenhouse, biomass and evapotranspiration characteristics were determined, and residues of explosives' parent compounds and metabolites were analyzed using HPLC techniques. Of the ten plant species tested, two grasses and four forbs were classified as TNT-tolerant. Total TNT loss from soil by processes other than plant TNT uptake ranged from 18.4 to 33.2 kg TNT ha super(-1) in grasses and forbs, respectively. Plant TNT uptake ranged from 0.2 kg ha super(-1) in grasses to almost none in forbs. Four grasses took up and metabolized TNT, and one forb showed some potential for TNT uptake and metabolism. All plant species were classified as RDX-tolerant. Total RDX loss from soil by processes other than plant RDX uptake ranged from 8.2 to 437 kg RDX ha super(-1) in grasses and forbs, respectively. Plant RDX uptake ranged from 3.4 kg ha super(-1) in grasses to 6.4 kg ha super(-1) in forbs. Four grasses and one forb metabolized RDX. Two plant species were recommended for further exploration of their phytoextraction/plant-assisted phytoremediation capacity, both species of the uptaker/degrader type. Three other species were recommended for further exploration of their phytostabilization/ plant-assisted phytoremediation capacity. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Torrey, A J AU - Smith, T AU - Hagen, F L AU - Dawson, JO Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - High-performance liquid chromatography KW - Grasses KW - Forbs KW - forbs KW - Metabolites KW - Soil KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - Phytoremediation KW - Dose-response effects KW - greenhouses KW - phytoremediation KW - Laboratory testing KW - Residues KW - Evapotranspiration KW - Biomass KW - Greenhouses KW - Storage KW - Explosives KW - Metabolism KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20367754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Biotechnology+Research+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Best%2C+EPH%3BTorrey%2C+A+J%3BSmith%2C+T%3BHagen%2C+F+L%3BDawson%2C+JO&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Capacities+of+Candidate+Herbaceous+Plants+for+Phytoremediation+of+Soil-based+TNT+and+RDX+on+Ranges&rft.title=Capacities+of+Candidate+Herbaceous+Plants+for+Phytoremediation+of+Soil-based+TNT+and+RDX+on+Ranges&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Explosive Residues from Low-Order Detonations of Heavy Artillery and Mortar Rounds AN - 20280196; 8883175 AB - Low-order detonations are produced by artillery and mortar rounds that fail to function as intended. The unconsumed residual explosive constitutes a potentially significant source of explosives for environmental receptors. The objectives of this study were to relate residue mass to detonation pressure, to define the relationship between the residue mass and distance from the detonation center, and to determine particle size distribution and composition of residues. Three types of mortar and two heavy artillery rounds were detonated by specific donor charges. Detonations were executed on a tarp so that residues could be recovered by sweeping. No consistent relationship was demonstrated between residue mass and measured detonation pressure. Furthermore, no consistent differences in deposition with distance from the detonation center were observed. Most of the recovered mass was in the > 12.5-mm size fraction; very little was in the < 0.25-mm size fraction. The ratio of RDX to TNT in the original Composition B was conserved in the residues. Results illustrate that significant quantities of explosive residues can result from low-order detonations. The particle size distribution and chemical composition of the explosive residues can be used to evaluate their future environmental fate and transport. JF - Soil and Sediment Contamination AU - Pennington, Judith C AU - Silverblatt, Bryan AU - Poe, Ken AU - Hayes, Charolett A AU - Yost, Sally AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 533 EP - 546 PB - CRC Press LLC, 2000 Corporate Blvd., NW Boca Raton FL 33431 USA, [mailto:journals@crcpress.com], [URL:http://www.crcpress.com] VL - 17 IS - 5 SN - 1532-0383, 1532-0383 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Particle size KW - Soil KW - Chemical composition KW - Residues KW - Explosives KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20280196?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Soil+and+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Explosive+Residues+from+Low-Order+Detonations+of+Heavy+Artillery+and+Mortar+Rounds&rft.au=Pennington%2C+Judith+C%3BSilverblatt%2C+Bryan%3BPoe%2C+Ken%3BHayes%2C+Charolett+A%3BYost%2C+Sally&rft.aulast=Pennington&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=533&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+and+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15320383&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15320380802306669 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Particle size; Chemical composition; Residues; Explosives DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15320380802306669 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of Chemical Treatments for a Mixed Contaminant Soil AN - 20229384; 8472827 AB - Treatability tests were conducted on soil from the reservoir No. 2 burning ground at the former Plum Brook Ordnance Works in Sandusky, Ohio. This soil is contaminated with explosives 2,4,6-trinitrotolune (TNT) and 2,4/2,6-dinitrotoluene (DNT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB, Aroclor 1260), as well as lead. Lime treatment (alkaline hydrolysis) and persulfate oxidation were tested individually and in combination to treat explosives and PCBs. Lime treatment removed 98% of TNT, 75% of DNT, and 80% of PCBs. Similar removal levels were found for persulfate treatment as well as lime followed by persulfate. The percentage of contaminant removal was found to be independent of initial contaminant concentrations. Treatments of the most contaminated soil did not meet the preliminary remediation goals for explosives or PCBs but would allow for disposal in a nonhazardous waste landfill. Treatment of soil with lower initial concentrations easily met the residential (most stringent) preliminary remediation goals of 16, 61, and 0.22 mg kg super(-1) for TNT, 2,6-DNT, and PCB (Aroclor 1260), respectively. Neither alkaline hydrolysis nor persulfate oxidation transferred more than 0.02% of the lead from the soil into the reaction waters. Lead was successfully stabilized via phosphate addition. JF - Journal of Environmental Engineering AU - Waisner, S AU - Medina, V F AU - Morrow, AB AU - Nestler, C C AD - U.S. Army Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, scott.a.waisner@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - Sep 2008 SP - 743 EP - 749 VL - 134 IS - 9 SN - 0733-9372, 0733-9372 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Bioremediation KW - Landfills KW - Chemical treatment KW - Soil contamination KW - burning KW - Hydrolysis KW - Lime KW - Lead KW - Prunus KW - Soil KW - Phosphates KW - Waste disposal sites KW - Oxidation KW - Explosives KW - Waste disposal KW - USA, Ohio KW - PCB compounds KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20229384?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%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+Engineering&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+Chemical+Treatments+for+a+Mixed+Contaminant+Soil&rft.au=Waisner%2C+S%3BMedina%2C+V+F%3BMorrow%2C+AB%3BNestler%2C+C+C&rft.aulast=Waisner&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=134&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=743&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+Engineering&rft.issn=07339372&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9372%282008%29134%3A9%28743%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bioremediation; Landfills; Chemical treatment; Soil contamination; burning; Lime; Hydrolysis; Lead; Soil; Phosphates; Oxidation; Waste disposal sites; Waste disposal; Explosives; PCB compounds; Prunus; USA, Ohio DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:9(743) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A method for computing infiltration and redistribution in a discretized moisture content domain AN - 19309568; 8498113 AB - A new one-dimensional infiltration and redistribution method is proposed as an alternative to the Richards equation (RE) for coupled surface and subsurface models. The proposed method discretizes soil water content into hypothetical hydraulically interacting bins. The entry and propagation of displacement fronts in each bin are simulated by means of explicit infiltration and drainage approximations based on capillary and gravitational driving forces. Wetting front advances within bins create water deficits that are satisfied by capillary-driven interbin flow. The method inherently provides numerical stability by precluding the need to directly estimate nonlinear gradients through numerical schemes. Comparisons of the performance of this method against RE solutions for theoretical, laboratory, and field data in both well-drained and high water table conditions are presented. The new method produces infiltration flux estimates with errors less than 10% compared to a widely used RE solution in tests on multiple soil textures with and without high water table conditions while providing unconditionally guaranteed conservation of mass. JF - Water Resources Research AU - Talbot, Cary A AU - Ogden, Fred L AD - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA Y1 - 2008/09// PY - 2008 DA - September 2008 PB - American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20009 USA, [mailto:service@agu.org] VL - 44 IS - 8 SN - 0043-1397, 0043-1397 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - W08453 KW - Infiltration KW - redistribution KW - modeling KW - Richards equation KW - 1838 Hydrology: Infiltration KW - 1830 Hydrology: Groundwater/surface water interaction KW - 1875 Hydrology: Vadose zone KW - 1866 Hydrology: Soil moisture KW - Water deficit KW - Soil Texture KW - Water resources KW - Conservation of mass KW - Water Deficit KW - Mathematical models KW - Laboratories KW - Drainage KW - Water Table KW - Water content KW - Methodology KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Numerical schemes KW - Fronts KW - Conservation KW - Water resources research KW - Soil moisture KW - Fluctuations KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 0845:Water in soils KW - Q2 09123:Conservation KW - M2 556.14:Infiltration/Soil Moisture (556.14) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19309568?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%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Research&rft.atitle=A+method+for+computing+infiltration+and+redistribution+in+a+discretized+moisture+content+domain&rft.au=Talbot%2C+Cary+A%3BOgden%2C+Fred+L&rft.aulast=Talbot&rft.aufirst=Cary&rft.date=2008-09-01&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2008WR006815 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mathematical models; Conservation of mass; Water resources; Water content; Methodology; Water deficit; Numerical schemes; Fronts; Drainage; Infiltration; Conservation; Soil moisture; Water resources research; Water Deficit; Performance Evaluation; Soil Texture; Laboratories; Water Table; Fluctuations DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006815 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JORDAN COVE ENERGY AND PACIFIC CONNECTOR GAS PIPELINE PROJECT, COOS, DOUGLAS, JACKSON, AND KLAMATH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 16387191; 13568 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to provide a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply access point in Oregon is proposed. The facilities would be located in Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath counties, Oregon. The applicants, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project, L.P. would provide up to 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the region through interconnects at one intrastate pipeline and four interstate pipeline systems. New LNG terminal facilities would include an access channel from the existing Coos Bay navigation channel and slip; an LNG unloading berth and a transfer pipeline; two full-containment LNG storage tanks, each having a capacity of 1.0 barrels; a vapor-handling system and vaporization equipment capable of regasifying LNG for delivery into the natural gas sendout pipeline; piping, ancillary buildings, safety systems, and other support facilities; a natural gas liquids (NGL) extraction facility, with NGL to be sold to an entity other than Jordan Cove and likely transported from the terminal using railway lines; and a 37-megawatt, natural gas-fired, simple-cycle combustion turbine power plant to provide electric power for the LNG terminal. The natural gas pipeline facilities would include a 230-mile, 36-inch underground sendout pipeline and a natural gas compression station, four natural gas meter stations, four pig launchers and/or receivers, 16 mainline block valves, five new communication towers, and additional communications equipment installed at eight existing towers. The Pacific Connector pipeline would deliver natural gas to the Williams Northwest Pipeline Corporation Grants Pass Lateral interstate pipeline near Clarks Branch, Oregon, and would terminate near the California border, east of Malin, Oregon, with additional interconnections with the existing pipeline systems for Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The applicants' pipeline would also deliver gas to Avista Corporation, a local distribution company that is not federally regulated; the interconnection would be located near Shady Grove, Oregon. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would postpone the proposed action, system alternatives, LNG terminal site alternatives, LNG terminal layout alternatives, and pipeline route alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed terminal and pipeline facilities would provide a new source of natural gas to the Pacific Northwest and northern California and Nevada facilities, easing importation of foreign sources of LNG into these growing markets, thereby, supporting expansion and diversification of the economic activities of the entire region. Construction of the terminal facilities would employ an average of 160 workers, with total wages of $117 million; $74 million would be expended on goods and services in the region. Construction of the pipeline would employ 1,400, with an overall payroll of $166 million; $320 million would be expended on materials and equipment. Indirect employment would also be anticipated and the port authority for Coos Bay and other government authorities would benefit from fees and taxes related to the enterprise. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Marine habitat and wetlands, including 405 acres of wetlands affected by the pipeline system. The largest part of the pipeline system (64 percent) would traverse forest land, while 144 percent of the route would cross agricultural lands. The pipeline system would traverse six wellhead protection areas, five of which are within 200 feet of the pipeline rights-of-way. The pipeline would cross 379 waterbodies in six subbasins, namely, the Coos, Coquille, South Umpqua, Upper Rogue, Upper Klamath, and Lost River subbasins. All facilities proposed would lie within areas of moderate-to-low seismic activity; tsunami risk is somewhat higher. Dredging the Coos Bay access channel would temporarily degrade water quality by releasing turbidity into the water column. One archaeological site within the terminal footprint and at least 12 of the 98 sites that could be affected by pipeline construction and operation could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080343, Volume I--269 pages, Volume II--533 pages, CD-ROM, August 29, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0223D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Electric Power KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Railroads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Oregon KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JORDAN+COVE+ENERGY+AND+PACIFIC+CONNECTOR+GAS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COOS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JORDAN+COVE+ENERGY+AND+PACIFIC+CONNECTOR+GAS+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+COOS%2C+DOUGLAS%2C+JACKSON%2C+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 29, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS, BEMIDJI TO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN EVALUATION. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS, BEMIDJI TO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN EVALUATION. AN - 756825229; 13569-080344_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The updating of reservoir operating plans for federally authorized reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the headwaters of the Mississippi River between Bemidji and St. Paul, Minnesota is proposed. The 19,400-square-mile Upper Mississippi River basin in Minnesota is defined as the basin upriver from Lock and Dam 2 near Hastings upstream to the river source at Lake Itasca. The current operating plans for federal dams in the headwaters of the Mississippi River were developed, for the most part, during the period extending from 1930 into the 1960s. Since them, only minor modifications have been made to the plans, even though there have been changes to the headwaters environment, most noticeably due to increased human population and development. Hence, revision of the operating plans is urgent. Five alternative planning schemes, including continuation of the existing scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed plan (Plan P) would provide operating plans for Cass Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, Pokegama Lake, Sandy Lake, Cross Lake, and Gulf Lake. The revised plans would address summer band elevation ranges, summer target elections, band width, normal drawdown elections, maximum drawdown elections, general rate of release, spring pulse release, minimum flow requirement during the April through September period and during the October through March period and late summer elevations for August 1st, September 1st, and October 1st. Annual operating hydrographs are provided for each impoundment. Plan P would provide for minor revisions to the flood operating rules. Flood damage curves would be used to help guide operations during a flood under all plans under consideration. The proposed plan would retain the basic flood damage curve relationships found in the existing plan, with the exception that Big Sandy Lake would no longer be included in the curves. As a result, with respect to any given flood, the relative targeted water levels between the city of Aitkin and Pokegama would remain the same as under the existing plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The majority of beneficial impacts on the human environment would occur in the upper half of the project area, extending from Little Falls upstream to Bemidji. Healthier lake and river ecosystems would be expected to result in socioeconomic as well as natural environmental benefits. The primary contributing factor to these positive impacts would be the late summer decline in water levels at the reservoirs. The hydrologic regime would more closely resemble natural conditions, promoting enhancement of native species indicated in the historic and prehistoric records. While Plan P would not result in seasonal water level change identical to those that would occur were the dams not in place, the plan would produce seasonal changes that are more similar to a natural pattern and, therefore, beneficial to a variety of species. Shoreline erosion would decrease due to expansion of increased emergent vegetation NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beginning July 15th, all reservoirs excepting the Gull would be allowed to fall at a rate of two inches per month, allowing navigation through some connecting channels more difficult for larger boats in the later summer and early fall. In most cases, this decline in water levels would not have a substantial impact on recreation in the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611), River and Harbor Act of 1880, River and Harbor Act of 1882, and River and Harbor Act of 1888. JF - EPA number: 080344, 512 pages, August 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi River KW - Minnesota KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1880, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1882, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1888, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS, BEMIDJI TO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN EVALUATION. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS, BEMIDJI TO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN EVALUATION. AN - 756825091; 13569-080344_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The updating of reservoir operating plans for federally authorized reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the headwaters of the Mississippi River between Bemidji and St. Paul, Minnesota is proposed. The 19,400-square-mile Upper Mississippi River basin in Minnesota is defined as the basin upriver from Lock and Dam 2 near Hastings upstream to the river source at Lake Itasca. The current operating plans for federal dams in the headwaters of the Mississippi River were developed, for the most part, during the period extending from 1930 into the 1960s. Since them, only minor modifications have been made to the plans, even though there have been changes to the headwaters environment, most noticeably due to increased human population and development. Hence, revision of the operating plans is urgent. Five alternative planning schemes, including continuation of the existing scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed plan (Plan P) would provide operating plans for Cass Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, Pokegama Lake, Sandy Lake, Cross Lake, and Gulf Lake. The revised plans would address summer band elevation ranges, summer target elections, band width, normal drawdown elections, maximum drawdown elections, general rate of release, spring pulse release, minimum flow requirement during the April through September period and during the October through March period and late summer elevations for August 1st, September 1st, and October 1st. Annual operating hydrographs are provided for each impoundment. Plan P would provide for minor revisions to the flood operating rules. Flood damage curves would be used to help guide operations during a flood under all plans under consideration. The proposed plan would retain the basic flood damage curve relationships found in the existing plan, with the exception that Big Sandy Lake would no longer be included in the curves. As a result, with respect to any given flood, the relative targeted water levels between the city of Aitkin and Pokegama would remain the same as under the existing plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The majority of beneficial impacts on the human environment would occur in the upper half of the project area, extending from Little Falls upstream to Bemidji. Healthier lake and river ecosystems would be expected to result in socioeconomic as well as natural environmental benefits. The primary contributing factor to these positive impacts would be the late summer decline in water levels at the reservoirs. The hydrologic regime would more closely resemble natural conditions, promoting enhancement of native species indicated in the historic and prehistoric records. While Plan P would not result in seasonal water level change identical to those that would occur were the dams not in place, the plan would produce seasonal changes that are more similar to a natural pattern and, therefore, beneficial to a variety of species. Shoreline erosion would decrease due to expansion of increased emergent vegetation NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beginning July 15th, all reservoirs excepting the Gull would be allowed to fall at a rate of two inches per month, allowing navigation through some connecting channels more difficult for larger boats in the later summer and early fall. In most cases, this decline in water levels would not have a substantial impact on recreation in the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611), River and Harbor Act of 1880, River and Harbor Act of 1882, and River and Harbor Act of 1888. JF - EPA number: 080344, 512 pages, August 28, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi River KW - Minnesota KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1880, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1882, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1888, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS, BEMIDJI TO ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA: RESERVOIR OPERATION PLAN EVALUATION. AN - 16387226; 13569 AB - PURPOSE: The updating of reservoir operating plans for federally authorized reservoirs operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the headwaters of the Mississippi River between Bemidji and St. Paul, Minnesota is proposed. The 19,400-square-mile Upper Mississippi River basin in Minnesota is defined as the basin upriver from Lock and Dam 2 near Hastings upstream to the river source at Lake Itasca. The current operating plans for federal dams in the headwaters of the Mississippi River were developed, for the most part, during the period extending from 1930 into the 1960s. Since them, only minor modifications have been made to the plans, even though there have been changes to the headwaters environment, most noticeably due to increased human population and development. Hence, revision of the operating plans is urgent. Five alternative planning schemes, including continuation of the existing scheme, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed plan (Plan P) would provide operating plans for Cass Lake, Lake Winnibigoshish, Leech Lake, Pokegama Lake, Sandy Lake, Cross Lake, and Gulf Lake. The revised plans would address summer band elevation ranges, summer target elections, band width, normal drawdown elections, maximum drawdown elections, general rate of release, spring pulse release, minimum flow requirement during the April through September period and during the October through March period and late summer elevations for August 1st, September 1st, and October 1st. Annual operating hydrographs are provided for each impoundment. Plan P would provide for minor revisions to the flood operating rules. Flood damage curves would be used to help guide operations during a flood under all plans under consideration. The proposed plan would retain the basic flood damage curve relationships found in the existing plan, with the exception that Big Sandy Lake would no longer be included in the curves. As a result, with respect to any given flood, the relative targeted water levels between the city of Aitkin and Pokegama would remain the same as under the existing plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The majority of beneficial impacts on the human environment would occur in the upper half of the project area, extending from Little Falls upstream to Bemidji. Healthier lake and river ecosystems would be expected to result in socioeconomic as well as natural environmental benefits. The primary contributing factor to these positive impacts would be the late summer decline in water levels at the reservoirs. The hydrologic regime would more closely resemble natural conditions, promoting enhancement of native species indicated in the historic and prehistoric records. While Plan P would not result in seasonal water level change identical to those that would occur were the dams not in place, the plan would produce seasonal changes that are more similar to a natural pattern and, therefore, beneficial to a variety of species. Shoreline erosion would decrease due to expansion of increased emergent vegetation NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beginning July 15th, all reservoirs excepting the Gull would be allowed to fall at a rate of two inches per month, allowing navigation through some connecting channels more difficult for larger boats in the later summer and early fall. In most cases, this decline in water levels would not have a substantial impact on recreation in the impoundments. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611), River and Harbor Act of 1880, River and Harbor Act of 1882, and River and Harbor Act of 1888. JF - EPA number: 080344, 512 pages, August 28, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mississippi River KW - Minnesota KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1880, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1882, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1888, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16387226?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.title=UPPER+MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+HEADWATERS%2C+BEMIDJI+TO+ST.+PAUL%2C+MINNESOTA%3A+RESERVOIR+OPERATION+PLAN+EVALUATION.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOPSAIL BEACH INTERIM (EMERGENCY) BEACHFILL PROJECT, TOPSAIL BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON SHORE PROTECTION FOR WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET (TOPSAIL BEACH) OF MARCH 2008). AN - 16374372; 13555 AB - PURPOSE: The placement of emergency beachfill along the shoreline of the community of Topsail Beach, North Carolina is proposed in this draft supplement to the final EIS of March 2008 addressing the reevaluation and reformulation of the authorized shore protection project for West Onslow Beach and Topsail Beach. Topsail Beach is the southernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, a 22-mile barrier island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that the most practicable plan of protection for the primary study area would consist of a berm and dune project, with terminal transitions, extending along approximately five miles of the oceanfront. The plan recommended by the final EIS would provide for a sand dune constructed to an elevation of 12 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot-wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of seven feet above NVGD. The berm-and-dune projects extends along 23,200 feet, extending from 400 feet southwest of Godwin Avenue to the Topsail Beach town limit. including 23,200 feet for the main fill and 2,000 feet for a transition fill at the north end of the project and 1,000 feet for a transition fill at the south end of the project. This final supplemental EIS addresses protection of Topsail Beach against recent damaging storms and continued extreme beach erosion that threaten 25 percent of the town's oceanfront properties. Given the potential delays associated with federal authorization and funding for the project as proposed in the final EIS, the town of Topsail Beach has determined that a one-time, interim beachfill is necessary to protect human safety and property and natural resources. The interim proposal would place sand on 4.7 miles of shoreline to protect the area dune complex, oceanfront development, and infrastructure from damaging storms and continued littoral beach erosion until the West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet federal shore protection project can be implemented. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing emergency protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach and dune fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-377), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0468D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080330, 1,189 pages and maps, August 21, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Carolina KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOPSAIL+BEACH+INTERIM+%28EMERGENCY%29+BEACHFILL+PROJECT%2C+TOPSAIL+BEACH%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+ON+SHORE+PROTECTION+FOR+WEST+ONSLOW+BEACH+AND+NEW+RIVER+INLET+%28TOPSAIL+BEACH%29+OF+MARCH+2008%29.&rft.title=TOPSAIL+BEACH+INTERIM+%28EMERGENCY%29+BEACHFILL+PROJECT%2C+TOPSAIL+BEACH%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+ON+SHORE+PROTECTION+FOR+WEST+ONSLOW+BEACH+AND+NEW+RIVER+INLET+%28TOPSAIL+BEACH%29+OF+MARCH+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSSELL STREET/SOUTH THIRD STREET, MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 36346057; 13552 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Russell Street from Mount Avenue/South 14th Street to West Broadway Street and South 3rd Street. The project would reconstruct 1.5 miles of Russell Street and one mile of South 3rd Street. Russell Street currently varies in width from two to four lanes, including turn lanes at some intersections; the facility includes a two-lane bridge over Clark Fork River. South 3rd Street currently varies in width but generally includes one travel lane in each direction and turn lanes at intersections. Six Russell Street alternatives and five South 3rd Street alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative for each corridor, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternatives would provide for four travel lanes and a center turn lane or median on Russell Street and two travel lanes and a center turn lane on South 3rd Street. Major intersections on Russell Street would be controlled with signals, while roundabouts would be employed on South 3rd Street. The existing Russell Street Bridge over the Clark Fork River would be demolished and replaced at the same general location. The project would also include restriction of River Road and Harlem, Kern, and Longstaff streets to right-in and right-out only connections to Russell Street; realignment of Lawrence and Addison streets to right-angle intersections with Russell Street; and realignment of Knowles Street slightly to the north to match South 11th Street on the west. The Bitterroot Branch Trail and Milwaukee Corridor Trail connections be placed in tunnels under Russell Street, and the Shady Grove (River Trail System) connection would be extended across the new Russell Street Bridge. All build alternatives for both street corridors would include sidewalks, bike lanes, boulevard landscaping, curb-and-gutter drainage systems, and bus pullouts. Costs of the preferred alternatives for Russell Street and South 3rd Street are estimated at $39.6 million and $12.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing safety and mobility improvements for users of the two affected corridors, the project would significantly improve the cityscape's visual aesthetics and reduce vehicle emissions due to smoother operations NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative for Russell Street, 4.3 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement 11 residences, and 10 commercial buildings. The three trail crossings would alter the viewscape of the trails and otherwise degrade the recreational experience of hikers and bicyclists. Under the preferred alternative for South 3rd Street, 2.77 acres of new rights-of-way development would result in the displacement three residences and two commercial buildings. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080327, 334 pages and maps, August 20, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-08-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Visual Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/36346057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUSSELL+STREET%2FSOUTH+THIRD+STREET%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=RUSSELL+STREET%2FSOUTH+THIRD+STREET%2C+MISSOULA+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 74 RELOCATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA: FROM US 129 IN ROBBINSVILLE TO NC 28 IN STECOAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE 1984 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349124; 13551 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 10 miles of four-lane, divided with partial control of access, extending from US 129 in Robbinsville to North Carolina (NC) 28 in Stecoah, Graham County, North Carolina is proposed. This project, which was proposed in a 1984 final EIS, would constitute the B and C segments of a US 74 relocation project. The project, in turn, is a component of Corridor K of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Four alignment alternatives and a No Build Alternative Are considered in this draft supplemental final EIS. Depending on the Alternative Alignment chosen, cost of the project is estimated to range from $334.3 million to $383.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This new segment of the ADHS would provide for regional connectivity and, thereby, economic development in an economically disadvantaged area, while completing a missing link in the Braham County transportation system. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alignment alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 35 to 44 residences and one or two businesses and could encroach on a park and a cemetery. From 81 to 105 acres of prime, unique, or locally important farmland would be taken. Natural vegetation habitat lost would include 136 to 164 acres of rice cove forest, 22.5 to 27.7 acres of acid cove forest, 71.8 to 111.3 acres of montane oak-hickory forest, 3.5 to 4.9 acres of dry-mesic oak-hickory forest, 1.3 acres of Canada hemlock forest, 0.5 to one acre of montane alluvial forest, and 1.7 to 7.2 acres of white pine forest; 65 to 92 acres of U.S. Forest Service-administered lands would be taken. The alignment would traverse 17.3 to 86 acres of floodplain, and 1.4 to 2.6 acres of wetlands would be lost. Culverts would result in shading of 753 to 803 linear feet of stream, and the project would require 18,804 to 23,195 linear feet of instream cut and fill. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 16 to 18 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers could encounter two 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.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 080326, Draft EIS--111 pages and maps, Appendices--244 pages, August 19, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-08-03-D KW - Appalachian Development Highways KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, 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/36349124?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+74+RELOCATION%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%3A+FROM+US+129+IN+ROBBINSVILLE+TO+NC+28+IN+STECOAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+IN+RELATION+TO+THE+1984+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=US+74+RELOCATION%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%3A+FROM+US+129+IN+ROBBINSVILLE+TO+NC+28+IN+STECOAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENTAL+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+IN+RELATION+TO+THE+1984+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 19, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITKA ROCKY GUTIERREZ AIRPORT, SITKA, ALASKA. AN - 16374288; 13544 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements for Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport near Sitka, Alaska is proposed. Sitka is located on the west coast of Baranof Island fronting the Pacific Ocean on Sitka Sound, 95 miles southwest of Juneau and 185 miles northwest of Ketchikan. The airport lies approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the central business district. The city is accessible only by air and sea. In addition to functioning as the city's only municipal airport, the facility, which was constructed in 1960, supports U.S. Coast Guard air station and other facilities on nearby Japonski Island. Under the federal National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, the airport is classified as a primary non-hub commercial service airport. The facility features one 6,500-foot-long, 150-foot-wide runway (Runway 11/29) and a partial taxiway. Two taxiways and connectors provide the partial taxiway system, and the facility also features a terminal facility, and general aviation facilities. The major actions proposed under the improvement project would include improvements to runway safety areas, construction of a full-length parallel taxiway, relocation of the seaplane pullout from west of the runway, install an approach lighting system, repair and improve the airport seawall, and acquire additional property needed for expansion of the facility. This draft EIS considers varying numbers of alternatives are considered for each type of improvement, including a No Action Alternative (in each case, Alternative 1). The preferred alternative is identified for each type of improvement. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would provide runway safety areas that meet federal guidance; reduce the potential for runway incursions and, thereby, improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations; improve the ability of aircraft to land and/or takeoff during inclement weather; maintain the structural integrity of the runway and prevent closure of the runway resulting from wave overtopping and associated storm debris; obtain property rights sufficient to provide lands for current and future aviation uses. The increased capacity and availability of the airport in nearly all weathers would provide a significant economic boost to island inhabitants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require placement of 371,200 cubic yards of fill into the Sitka Sound, violating the guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Sitka Coastal Management Program. The area of placement is affected by coastal flooding, and the displacement of open water would displace floodwater storage capacity. The new seaplane pullout would also damage coastal values. Construction of the runway safety area would displace 622 linear feet of shoreline and 1.93 acres of open water and benthic habitat due to rock placement. Bird habitat would be fragmented by taxiway facilities. Construction workers would be likely to encounter hazardous military wastes on the seafloor. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080319, 778 pages, August 14, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Ice Environments KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Coast Guard) KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Baranof Island KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Funding KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=SITKA+ROCKY+GUTIERREZ+AIRPORT%2C+SITKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 14, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 73, FROM I-19 TO FUTURE INTERSTATE 74, DILLON AND MARLBOROUGH COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA AND RICHMOND AND SCOTT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16376443; 13542 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a segment of Interstate 73 (I-73) on new alignment in northeastern South Carolina is proposed. Through the portion of the project to be addressed in this EIS process is located in South Carolina, the project study area extends northwest from I-95 and is bounded by the North Carolina/South Carolina state line to the east, by a line just north of future I-73/74 in North Carolina, and to the west by the eastern edge of the Great Pee Dee River floodplain. The project would extend from I-95 in Dillon County and through Marlboro County in South Carolina and into Richmond County, North Carolina, terminating at I-74 in Richmond County. The typical roadway section would accommodate a six-lane facility with corridors for future rail lines and allowances for frontage roads where necessary. The initial facility would accommodate two traffic lanes in each direction. In the future, when traffic volumes increased to a pint at which additional lanes were necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service, an additional lane in each direction would be added within the median. A 400-foot rights-of-way would be acquired where frontage roads were necessary. Where frontage roads were not required, a 300-foot rights-of-way would be acquired. Three Alternative Alignments and a No-Build Alternative Are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives vary in length from 36.8 to 40.6 miles. These alternatives would have interchanges at I-95, State Route (SR) 34, SR 381 or SR 9, US 15/401, SR 79, or SR 9, and I-71. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2), which extends 36.8 miles, was selected as it would have the least impact on wetlands and farmland, the lowest cost, and the fewest residential and business relocations. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.08 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new segment of freeway would provide an interstate link between the southernmost proposed segment of I-73 (between I-95 and the Myrtle Beach area) and the North Carolina I-73/74 corridor, to serve residents, businesses, and travelers while fulfilling congressional intent in an environmentally responsible and community-sensitive manner. The project would promote economic development in Richmond, Scotland, Marlboro, and Dillon counties and provide a corridor for future rail connections. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 35 residences and six businesses, 1,505 acres of farmland, 114.3 acres of wetlands, 8,143 linear feet of stream at 24 stream crossings, 1,800.8 acres of upland wildlife habitat, and 25 acres of floodplain. Approximately 804.9 acres within the corridor would have a high potential for containing archaeological values. The facility would traverse four rail lines and two natural gas pipelines. Eight communities populated by minority and/or low income residents would suffer disproportionately from community disruptions cause by construction and use of the freeway. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste site. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12898, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0280D, Volume 31, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080317, 699 pages and maps, August 13, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Executive Order 12898, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+73%2C+FROM+I-19+TO+FUTURE+INTERSTATE+74%2C+DILLON+AND+MARLBOROUGH+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+AND+RICHMOND+AND+SCOTT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN EVACUATION LIFELINE, HORRY AND GEORGETOWN COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 16375973; 13537 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a freeway on new location in southeastern Horry County and northeastern Georgetown County, South Carolina is proposed. The coast of South Carolina is subject to the destructive forces of hurricanes. The South Strand and Waccamaw Neck areas, which are experiencing rapid population growth, are isolated from the mainland by the Waccamaw River. The bridge crossing the river lies 40 miles southwest US 17 in Georgetown. This distance places residents at higher risk of finding themselves unable to evacuate in the event of a hurricane. The study corridor for the facility, to be known as the Southern Evacuation LifeLine (SELL), is bounded by US 501, the Pee Dee River, and the Atlantic Ocean. The SELL would extend from the US 501/South Carolina (SC) 22 interchange nine miles northwest of Conway to SC 31 (Carolina Bays Parkway) west of Myrtle Beach or to US 17 in either the southeastern tip of Horry County or the northeastern tip of Georgetown County, depending on the alternative selected. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would terminate on US 17 south of Holmestown Road. The freeway would consist of a four-lane, controlled-access, divided highway within a 400-foot rights-of-way along most of the alignment. Opposing lanes would be separated by a grass median, and frontage roads would be provided where necessary to maintain local access and continuity. The project would include a bridge over the Waccamaw River. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide the region with improved hurricane evacuation, congestion relief, and improved access to needed services and employment opportunities east and west of the Waccamaw River. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would cross 10 drainages, displacing 334 acres of wetlands, result in the loss of 825 acres of farmland, fragment wildlife habitat, require the displacement of 17 residences, 90 planned residential sites, two businesses, and five other structures. The SELL would traverse an area identified for possible future inclusion in the Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. One hazardous waste site would b encountered by workers. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 sensitive receptor sites. Highway infrastructure would mar the otherwise rural and forested landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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: 080312, 274 pages (oversized), CD-ROM, August 7, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - South Carolina KW - Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/16375973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+EVACUATION+LIFELINE%2C+HORRY+AND+GEORGETOWN+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+EVACUATION+LIFELINE%2C+HORRY+AND+GEORGETOWN+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 7, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHORE PROTECTION, WEST ONSLOW BEACH AND NEW RIVER INLET (TOPSAIL BEACH), NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16381621; 13535 AB - PURPOSE: The reevaluation and reformulation of the authorized shore protection project for West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), North Carolina is proposed. Topsail Beach is the southernmost of three towns on Topsail Island, located on the southeastern North Carolina coast. The primary study area for this report includes the town of Topsail Beach and associated borrow sites nearby. The area is subject to damages associated with hurricane and tropical storm surges and littoral beach erosion. Analyses and recommendations for the rest of Topsail Island, namely, Surf City and North Topsail Beach, are being conducted under a separate authority. The study at hand indicates that the most practicable plan of protection for the primary study area would consist of a berm and dune project, with terminal transitions, extending along approximately five miles of the oceanfront. The recommended plan would provide for a sand dune constructed to an elevation of 12 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot-wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of seven feet above NGVD. The berm-and-dune projects extends along 23,200 feet, extending from 400 feet southwest of Godwin Avenue to the Topsail Beach town limit. including 23,200 feet for the main fill and 2,000 feet for a transition fill at the north end of the project and 1,000 feet for a transition fill at the south end of the project. First-cost of the project is estimated at $31.0 million; annual costs are estimated at $3.99 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 3.3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection against storm surges and littoral beach erosion, the project would enhance the beach strand available for recreational use and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beach and dune fill could affect foraging habitat for piping plover, a federally protected species, and nesting areas for Kemp's ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and leatherback sea turtle, also federally protected species. Hopper dredges used to collect beachfill from offshore areas could affect the sea turtles as well. Initial dredging and periodic dredging for beach nourishment following the initial beach formation activities would be planned to avoid turtle nesting season and seasons when warm waters attract the turtles to offshore areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-377), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1962, and Water Resources Development Act of 1992. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0468D, Volume 30, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 080310, 197 pages and maps, CD-ROM, August 6, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Carolina KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 2001, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHORE+PROTECTION%2C+WEST+ONSLOW+BEACH+AND+NEW+RIVER+INLET+%28TOPSAIL+BEACH%29%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SHORE+PROTECTION%2C+WEST+ONSLOW+BEACH+AND+NEW+RIVER+INLET+%28TOPSAIL+BEACH%29%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825227; 13536-080311_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756825084; 13536-080311_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756825084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 756824770; 13536-080311_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756824770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENVER UNION STATION PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. AN - 16375935; 13536 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements at Denver Union Station (DUS) in lower downtown Denver, Colorado is proposed. Various planning studies have shown that population and employment levels in the metropolitan Denver area are likely to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030. In response to this anticipated growth, the region has identified several transportation mode solutions such as bus rapid transit, light rail, passenger rail, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes to help relieve the expected congestion, improve air quality, and offer additional transportation options to the public. The proposed action (Vision Plan Alternative) would represent the full build-out of the transportation improvements identified in the Denver Union Station Master Plan (September 2004) over a 20-year period. Phase I of the Vision Plan Alternative, which has been funded, would include construction of a below-grade light rail station consisting of three tracks and platforms, enhanced at-grade passenger rail services, relocation of the existing Sixteenth Street Mall Shuttle turnaround, and related site improvements. A boarding plaza would be provided for bus service on the west side of the DUS. The full build-out would facilitate the accommodation of a large number of public and private transportation service providers, transportation-related facilities, and planned passenger services. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would enhance the functioning of DUS as a multimodal transportation center serving the metropolitan Denver region and the state of Colorado. Improving DUS would bring together the various modes of transportation planned for the region into one place, providing an efficient and convenient access to and from the downtown Denver area. Opportunities for joint economic development in the mixed-use facility and the surrounding area would be provided. The existing historic character of DUS and its environs would be rehabilitated and restored. Appropriate urban design and neighborhood cohesiveness would be promoted. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Station developments would partially displace four properties within 0.5 acre of rights-of-way. Additional facilities at DUS would alter the historically significant visual appearance of the station and its environs somewhat. Noise levels in areas adjacent to the passenger rail tracks and bus lanes would exceed federal standards. Subsurface features would likely require permanent dewatering activities, potentially affecting recharge and depth of the groundwater aquifer. An estimated 47 utilities would be affected by the Vision Plan Alternative, while Phase I activities would affect 43 such facilities. 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.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0273D, Volume 30, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 080311, Final EIS--536 pages, Appendices--366 pages and maps, August 5, 2008 PY - 2008 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Colorado KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DENVER+UNION+STATION+PROJECT%2C+DENVER%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Primary production, nutrient dynamics, and accretion of a coastal freshwater forested wetland assimilation system in Louisiana AN - 19867589; 8415581 AB - This study reports on the response of a tidal, freshwater forested wetland ecosystem to long-term input of secondarily treated municipal effluent from the City of Mandeville, LA. Measurements of hydrology, nutrients, and aboveground net primary productivity were made from September 1998 through March 2002. Accretion measurements were made in October 2000 and October 2004. The major hydrologic inputs to the system were the effluent, precipitation, and back water flooding from Lake Pontchartrain. Nutrient levels were generally low except in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Mean net primary production of the freshwater forest system was significantly higher downstream of the effluent discharge (1202gm super(-) super(2)yr super(-) super(1)) compared to the control site (799gm super(-) super(2)yr super(-) super(1)). Downstream of the outfall, accretion rates were double the rate of relative sea level rise in the area. Removal efficiencies of N and P were as high as 75% and 95%, respectively. The relatively constant flow of secondarily treated municipal effluent buffered the downstream area from salinity intrusion during a region-wide drought. Re-direction of nutrient-enhanced effluents from open water bodies to wetland ecosystems can maintain plant productivity, sequester carbon, and maintain coastal wetland elevations in response to sea-level rise in addition to improving overall surface water quality, reducing energy use, and increasing financial savings. JF - Ecological Engineering AU - Brantley, C G AU - Day, J W AU - Lane, R R AU - Hyfield, E AU - Day, J N AU - Ko, J Y AD - School of the Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, United States, Christopher.G.Brantley@mvn02.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2008/08/04/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Aug 04 SP - 7 EP - 22 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl] VL - 34 IS - 1 SN - 0925-8574, 0925-8574 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana KW - Sea level KW - Ecosystems KW - Surface water KW - Forests KW - Nutrients KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Primary production KW - Accretion KW - Carbon sequestration KW - Efficiency KW - Salinity KW - Lakes KW - Carbon KW - Hydrology KW - Downstream KW - Municipal wastes KW - Wetlands KW - Outfall KW - Droughts KW - Urban areas KW - nutrient dynamics KW - Freshwater environments KW - Primary Productivity KW - Brackish KW - Energy consumption KW - Precipitation KW - Effluents KW - Inland water environment KW - Outfalls KW - ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L. KW - downstream KW - Nutrients (mineral) KW - Waste water KW - forested wetlands KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - Q1 08481:Productivity KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19867589?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecological+Engineering&rft.atitle=Primary+production%2C+nutrient+dynamics%2C+and+accretion+of+a+coastal+freshwater+forested+wetland+assimilation+system+in+Louisiana&rft.au=Brantley%2C+C+G%3BDay%2C+J+W%3BLane%2C+R+R%3BHyfield%2C+E%3BDay%2C+J+N%3BKo%2C+J+Y&rft.aulast=Brantley&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2008-08-04&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Engineering&rft.issn=09258574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoleng.2008.05.004 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hydrology; Wetlands; Nutrients (mineral); Waste water; Water quality; Inland water environment; Primary production; Lakes; Carbon; Freshwater environments; Nutrients; Precipitation; Effluents; nutrient dynamics; Sea level; Surface water; Forests; Energy consumption; Outfalls; Carbon sequestration; Salinity; Efficiency; downstream; Municipal wastes; Droughts; forested wetlands; Urban areas; Accretion; Ecosystems; Primary Productivity; Downstream; Outfall; ASW, USA, Louisiana; ASW, USA, Louisiana, Pontchartrain L.; Freshwater; Brackish DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.05.004 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Reproductive Ecology of Sandhills Pyxie-moss Pyxidanthera barbulata (Michaux) var. brevifolia (B.W. Wells) Ahles T2 - 93rd Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2008) AN - 41068588; 4918578 JF - 93rd Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA 2008) AU - Hohmann, Matthew G AU - Bates, Moni C AU - Gray, Janet B Y1 - 2008/08/03/ PY - 2008 DA - 2008 Aug 03 KW - Ecology KW - Reproduction KW - Pyxidanthera barbulata UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/41068588?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%3Acpi&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=93rd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2008%29&rft.atitle=Reproductive+Ecology+of+Sandhills+Pyxie-moss+Pyxidanthera+barbulata+%28Michaux%29+var.+brevifolia+%28B.W.+Wells%29+Ahles&rft.au=Hohmann%2C+Matthew+G%3BBates%2C+Moni+C%3BGray%2C+Janet+B&rft.aulast=Hohmann&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2008-08-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=93rd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Ecological+Society+of+America+%28ESA+2008%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://eco.confex.com/eco/2008/techprogram/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-02-25 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sound-wave coherence in atmospheric turbulence with intrinsic and global intermittency. AN - 742779660; pmid-18681567 AB - The coherence function of sound waves propagating through an intermittently turbulent atmosphere is calculated theoretically. Intermittency mechanisms due to both the turbulent energy cascade (intrinsic intermittency) and spatially uneven production (global intermittency) are modeled using ensembles of quasiwavelets (QWs), which are analogous to turbulent eddies. The intrinsic intermittency is associated with decreasing spatial density (packing fraction) of the QWs with decreasing size. Global intermittency is introduced by allowing the local strength of the turbulence, as manifested by the amplitudes of the QWs, to vary in space according to superimposed Markov processes. The resulting turbulence spectrum is then used to evaluate the coherence function of a plane sound wave undergoing line-of-sight propagation. Predictions are made by a general simulation method and by an analytical derivation valid in the limit of Gaussian fluctuations in signal phase. It is shown that the average coherence function increases as a result of both intrinsic and global intermittency. When global intermittency is very strong, signal phase fluctuations become highly non-Gaussian and the average coherence is dominated by episodes with weak turbulence. JF - The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America AU - Wilson, D Keith AU - Ostashev, Vladimir E AU - Goedecke, George H AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA. Y1 - 2008/08// PY - 2008 DA - Aug 2008 SP - 743 EP - 757 VL - 124 IS - 2 SN - 0001-4966, 0001-4966 KW - Index Medicus KW - National Library of Medicine KW - Computer Simulation KW - Motion KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Normal Distribution KW - Temperature KW - Markov Chains KW - Acoustics KW - Sound KW - Atmospheric Pressure KW - Models, Theoretical UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742779660?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%3Acomdisdome&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Sound-wave+coherence+in+atmospheric+turbulence+with+intrinsic+and+global+intermittency.&rft.au=Wilson%2C+D+Keith%3BOstashev%2C+Vladimir+E%3BGoedecke%2C+George+H&rft.aulast=Wilson&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=743&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00014966&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English (eng) DB - ComDisDome N1 - Date revised - 2010-04-13 N1 - Last updated - 2010-09-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toxicological effects of military fog oil obscurant on Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia in field and laboratory exposures. AN - 69232212; 18392677 AB - Our purpose was to determine if the acute and sub-lethal effects of fog oil, an obscurant used for military training, could be observed in realistic field exposures. To this end, we exposed Daphnia magna to oil fogs under actual release conditions at a U.S. Army training site. Guided by field investigations, acute toxicity experiments were conducted in the laboratory with the more sensitive species Ceriodaphnia dubia to test the hypothesis that dissolution of fog oil constituents into water is minimal and actual contact by organisms with the water surface is required to cause toxicity. We conducted further experiments to test the hypothesis that vaporization of fog oil alters its chemical composition and toxicity to freshwater invertebrates. In the field, daphnid mortality was minimal more than 5 m from the point of fog generation, but sub-lethal effects were more extensive. Both field and laboratory experiments suggested that physical contact with oils on the water surface was the most important factor driving toxicity. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to evaluate toxicological endpoints with freshwater invertebrates in field exposures with fog oil. JF - Ecotoxicology (London, England) AU - Cropek, Donald M AU - Esarey, Joan C AU - Conner, Cassie L AU - Goran, Jacob M AU - Smith, Thomas AU - Soucek, David J AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL 61822, USA. Y1 - 2008/08// PY - 2008 DA - August 2008 SP - 517 EP - 525 VL - 17 IS - 6 SN - 0963-9292, 0963-9292 KW - Aerosols KW - 0 KW - Oils KW - Petroleum KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Index Medicus KW - Animals KW - Life Cycle Stages -- drug effects KW - Dose-Response Relationship, Drug KW - Longevity -- drug effects KW - Toxicity Tests KW - Petroleum -- toxicity KW - Daphnia -- physiology KW - Daphnia -- drug effects KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- toxicity KW - Oils -- toxicity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/69232212?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%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.atitle=Toxicological+effects+of+military+fog+oil+obscurant+on+Daphnia+magna+and+Ceriodaphnia+dubia+in+field+and+laboratory+exposures.&rft.au=Cropek%2C+Donald+M%3BEsarey%2C+Joan+C%3BConner%2C+Cassie+L%3BGoran%2C+Jacob+M%3BSmith%2C+Thomas%3BSoucek%2C+David+J&rft.aulast=Cropek&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=517&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.issn=09639292&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10646-008-0207-z LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2008-11-13 N1 - Date created - 2008-06-20 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10646-008-0207-z ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Phosphorus dynamics and loading in the turbid Minnesota River (USA): controls and recycling potential AN - 21229734; 11718864 AB - Phosphorus (P) dynamics in the agriculturally-dominated Minnesota River (USA) were examined in the lower 40mile reach in relation to hydrology, loading sources, suspended sediment, and chlorophyll to identify potential biotic and abiotic controls over concentrations of soluble P and the recycling potential of particulate P during transport to the Upper Mississippi River. Within this reach, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) contributions as soluble reactive P (SRP) were greatest during very low discharge and declined with increasing discharge and nonpoint source P loading. Concentrations of SRP declined during low discharge in conjunction with increases in chlorophyll, suggesting biotic transformation to particulate P via phytoplankton uptake. During higher discharge periods, SRP was constant at~0.115mgl super(-1) and coincided with an independently measured equilibrium P concentration (EPC) for suspended sediment in the river, suggesting abiotic control over SRP via phosphate buffering. Particulate P (PP) accounted for 66% of the annual total P load. Redox-sensitive PP, estimated using extraction procedures, represented 43% of the PP. Recycling potential of this load via diffusive sediment P flux under anoxic conditions was conservatively estimated as~17mgm super(-2)d super(-1) using published regression equations. The reactive nature and high P recycling potential of suspended sediment loads in the Minnesota River has important consequences for eutrophication of the Upper Mississippi River. JF - Biogeochemistry AU - James, William F AU - Larson, Catherine E AD - Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, W. 500 Eau Galle Dam Rd., Spring Valley, WI, 54767, USA Y1 - 2008/08// PY - 2008 DA - Aug 2008 SP - 75 EP - 92 PB - Springer-Verlag, Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 90 IS - 1 SN - 0168-2563, 0168-2563 KW - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Ecology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Transformation KW - Chlorophylls KW - Chlorophyll KW - Phosphorus KW - Phytoplankton KW - Freshwater KW - Resuspended sediments KW - Hydrology KW - Sedimentation KW - Rivers KW - Wastewater Facilities KW - Nonpoint sources KW - Biogeochemistry KW - River discharge KW - Pollution Load KW - Suspended Load KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Sediment-water interface KW - Sediment Load KW - Eutrophication KW - Particulates KW - Recycling KW - Wastewater treatment KW - Waste management KW - USA, Minnesota R. KW - Sediment pollution KW - Suspended Sediments KW - Mathematical models KW - Suspended particulate matter KW - Sediments KW - Water pollution KW - Phosphates KW - Phosphate KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - D 04070:Pollution KW - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - K 03450:Ecology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/21229734?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%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biogeochemistry&rft.atitle=Phosphorus+dynamics+and+loading+in+the+turbid+Minnesota+River+%28USA%29%3A+controls+and+recycling+potential&rft.au=James%2C+William+F%3BLarson%2C+Catherine+E&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2008-08-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=75&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biogeochemistry&rft.issn=01682563&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10533-008-9232-5 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resuspended sediments; Chlorophylls; Sediment-water interface; Eutrophication; River discharge; Phytoplankton; Hydrology; Sedimentation; Water pollution; Rivers; Transformation; Chlorophyll; Nonpoint sources; Mathematical models; Phosphorus; Recycling; Wastewater treatment; Sediments; Phosphate; Sediment pollution; Biogeochemistry; Particulates; Suspended particulate matter; Waste management; Phosphates; Wastewater Facilities; Suspended Sediments; Sediment Load; Pollution Load; Suspended Load; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Minnesota R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10533-008-9232-5 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 7 of 9] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756827500; 14432-080303_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-class carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been home ported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-class carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This draft supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with home porting three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increased traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the home porting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards. Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080303, 107 pages, July 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 7 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 4 of 9] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756827354; 14432-080303_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-class carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been home ported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-class carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This draft supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with home porting three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increased traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the home porting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards. Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080303, 107 pages, July 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 4 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). [Part 5 of 9] T2 - DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THE HOMEPORTING OF THREE NIMITZ-CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS IN SUPPORT OF THE U.S. PACIFIC FLEET (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2000). AN - 756827260; 14432-080303_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of port facilities at Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) in Coronado, California is proposed so that those facilities could serve as a homeport for three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers is proposed. The Nimitz-class carrier is part of the Navy's new modern fleet of deep-draft ships powered by nuclear energy. As the result of a 1993 directive to close Naval Air Station Alameda, ships that had been home ported there must be transferred to San Diego and ports in the Pacific Northwest. Because of the larger dimensions of the Nimitz-class carrier, deepening of the berthing area, turning basin, and main navigation channel would be required. This draft supplement to the 1999 final EIS, published in January of 2000, focuses primarily on vehicular traffic and likely traffic-related problems in Coronado resulting from the influx of personnel and the extraordinary increase in vehicular activity associated with home porting three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, as well as measures to mitigate these impacts of the increased traffic volumes. For this supplemental EIS (SEIS), the baseline data and impact analyses focus on six environmental resource areas for which new information has been obtained. These six environmental resource areas are ground transportation/circulation of traffic, air pollutant and noise emissions, biological resources, marine water quality, and coastal processes. In addition, the analyses are organized to present three primary issue areas, specifically, traffic and transportation, construction of new infrastructure, and public concerns expressed regarding erosion. The proposed action analyzed in the 1999 final EIS was executed in 204 pursuant to the 2000 record of decision. This SEIS does not propose any changes to the proposed action. However, the SEIS analyses some newly proposed minor infrastructure upgrades. The minor infrastructure improvements would take place Berth LIMA at NASNI. No further dredging would be required. The improvements include the construction of a fendering system, mooring bollards, a aircraft carrier security building and anti-terrorism/force protection improvements, as well as the installation of information systems, electrical and mechanical utility upgrades, paving, drainage, and general site improvements. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action Alternative is considered and rejected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements in deep-draft navigation would provide economic benefits to the region by providing a deeper channel for commercial navigation. The preferred alternative would improve the condition of San Diego beaches and require the cleanup of hazardous waste sites along the shoreline at NASNI. The influx of personnel and their families and additional local spending by the Navy would significantly boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would adversely affect the visual character of the NAS San Diego Historic District. Traffic generated by the home porting of three Nimitz would reduce the level of service at most intersections within the vicinity of the NASNI. Air pollutant levels would increase substantially in an area that is already in violation of federal air quality standards. Noise emissions would also increase substantially, exceeding federal standards at some sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 080303, 107 pages, July 31, 2008 PY - 2008 VL - 5 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Submarines KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Naval Air Station North Island KW - Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756827260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2008-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=DEVELOPMENT+OF+FACILITIES+TO+SUPPORT+THE+HOMEPORTING+OF+THREE+NIMITZ-CLASS+AIRCRAFT+CARRIERS+IN+SUPPORT+OF+THE+U.S.+PACIFIC+FLEET+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 31, 2008 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -