TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380171; 050490F-050313_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36380004; 050490F-050313_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 47 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379983; 050490F-050313_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 47 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 55 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379827; 050490F-050313_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 55 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 61 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379781; 050490F-050313_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 61 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 56 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378827; 050490F-050313_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 56 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 50 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378656; 050490F-050313_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 50 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 54 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378531; 050490F-050313_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 54 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 52 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378338; 050490F-050313_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 52 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 24 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378293; 050490F-050313_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 49 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378163; 050490F-050313_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 49 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 51 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374981; 050490F-050313_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 51 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 32 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374779; 050490F-050313_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 32 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 42 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374568; 050490F-050313_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 42 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 64 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374365; 050490F-050313_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 64 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 69 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374281; 050490F-050313_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 69 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 67 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36374096; 050490F-050313_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 67 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 53 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373923; 050490F-050313_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 53 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 35 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373783; 050490F-050313_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 35 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373492; 050490F-050313_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 28 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373276; 050490F-050313_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 44 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373103; 050490F-050313_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 44 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 22 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36373091; 050490F-050313_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 93 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36370669; 050490F-050313_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 93 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 20 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36369356; 050490F-050313_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366821; 050490F-050313_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 14 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366714; 050490F-050313_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366546; 050490F-050313_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 85 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366238; 050490F-050313_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 85 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 79 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366229; 050490F-050313_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 79 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=Bruno&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2016-08-29&rft.volume=178&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=57&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aviation+Week+%26+Space+Technology&rft.issn=00052175&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 84 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36366086; 050490F-050313_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 84 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36365476; 050490F-050313_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 26 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364749; 050490F-050313_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 31 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36364525; 050490F-050313_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 31 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 76 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363791; 050490F-050313_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 76 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 73 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36363510; 050490F-050313_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 73 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36362408; 050490F-050313_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 38 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36362036; 050490F-050313_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 38 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 37 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36361745; 050490F-050313_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 37 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 78 of 94] T2 - REMEDIATON OF THE MOAB URANIUM MILL TAILINGS, GRAND AND SAN JUAN COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36361329; 050490F-050313_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of remediation of uranium tailings on the Moab mill site in Grand and San Juan counties, Utah is proposed. The 439-acre site lies three miles northwest of the city of Moab on the west bank of the Colorado River at its confluence with Moab Wash. The site is a former uranium-ore processing facility that was owned and operated by the Uranium Reduction Company and later Atlas Minerals Corporation. The mill ceased operations in 1984 and has been dismantled, excepting one building that is currently used for vehicle maintenance and could be used as office space during remediation. In 1996, Atlas submitted a reclamation plan and an application for an amendment to its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to allow for the reclamation of the site, the plan for which was described in a final EIS of March 1999. The EIS did not address groundwater standards compliance or remediation in properties in the vicinity of the site, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concerns regarding the impacts of contaminants reaching the Colorado River, particularly effects on four endangered species of fish and critical habitat. In 1998, the Service had concluded that continue leaching of existing concentrations of ammonia and other constituents into the river would jeopardize razorback sucker and Colorado pike minnow. The currently proposed project would undertake to remediate 11.9 million tons of contaminated materials located in a 130-acre unlined pile that occupies the western portion of the site as well as 39,700 tons located on nearby properties and develop and implement a groundwater compliance strategy for the site, using using the Final EIS for the Uranium Mill Tailings Action Ground Water Project (DOE\EIS-0198) of October 1996. The surface remediation alternatives analyzed in this final EIS include onsite disposal of contaminated materials and offsite disposal at one of three alternative locations in Utah using one or more transportation options, specifically, truck, rail, and slurry pipeline. The EIS also considers a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would involve off-site disposal of the Moab uranium mill tailings pile, combined with active groundwater remediation at the Moab site. The preferred off-site disposal site location would be the Crescent Junction site, and the preferred mode of transportation of the waste material would be rail. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The remediation program would address materials at the Moab site and in its vicinity that contain that exceed federal water pollutant concentration standards, affecting river fish habitat and presenting a human health hazard. The remediation project would contribute significantly to the local economy, including creation of up to 778 direct and indirect jobs during the first (peak) year of activity. five borrow materials would be needed to construct a disposal cell cover and to reclaim some site surface areas after completion of remediation under all action alternatives; impacts to 10 potential borrow areas are assessed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 100- and 500-year flood events could inundate part of one of the disposal sites under consideration, resulting in the release of additional contamination into groundwater and surface flows. Potential wetland areas could be threatened at one disposal site. Transportation of tailings by slurry pipeline would involve provision of a crossing of the Colorado River, the Matheson Wetlands Preserve, and a number or perennial and intermittent streams. Truck or rail transport modes would require annual withdrawals of 235 to 240 acre-feet of water from the river, while use of the slurry pipeline would require 730 acre-feet of annual withdrawals. Fifty acres of wildlife habitat would be temporarily lost at the Moab site, and up to 435 acres of undisturbed rangeland and the associated forage would be dedicated to the disposal cell under offsite disposal alternatives. Archaeological resources would probably be adversely impacted under any action alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0256D, Volume 29, Number 2. For the abstracts of the draft and final programmatic EISs on the groundwater project, see 95-0247D, Volume 19, Number 3 and 96-0540F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on Moab site reclamation, see 96-00032D, Volume 20, Number 6 and 99-0212F, Volume 23, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050313, Summary--69 pages, Final EIS--721 pages, July 25, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 78 KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0355F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Disposal KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Floodplains KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Pipelines KW - Radiation Hazards KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Ranges KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Tailings KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wetlands KW - Utah KW - Floyd D, Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Project Authorization KW - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 25, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Watershed Approach to Stream Stability and Benefits Related to the Reduction of Nutrients T2 - 2005 Conference on Watershed Management AN - 40101159; 3967945 JF - 2005 Conference on Watershed Management AU - Robertson, Jr, R AU - Smith, John AU - Biedenharn, David AU - Carlson, Kenneth AU - Watson, Chester Y1 - 2005/07/19/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 19 KW - Watersheds KW - Streams KW - Nutrients KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40101159?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=2005+Conference+on+Watershed+Management&rft.atitle=Watershed+Approach+to+Stream+Stability+and+Benefits+Related+to+the+Reduction+of+Nutrients&rft.au=Robertson%2C+Jr%2C+R%3BSmith%2C+John%3BBiedenharn%2C+David%3BCarlson%2C+Kenneth%3BWatson%2C+Chester&rft.aulast=Robertson&rft.aufirst=Jr&rft.date=2005-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2005+Conference+on+Watershed+Management&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/conferences/ws05/ws05_final.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-09-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Ecological Implications of Post-Dam Removal Sediment Processes T2 - 2005 Conference on Watershed Management AN - 40010288; 3967813 JF - 2005 Conference on Watershed Management AU - Conyngham, Jock AU - Fischenich, Craig Y1 - 2005/07/19/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 19 KW - Sediments KW - U 4300:Environmental Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40010288?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=2005+Conference+on+Watershed+Management&rft.atitle=Ecological+Implications+of+Post-Dam+Removal+Sediment+Processes&rft.au=Conyngham%2C+Jock%3BFischenich%2C+Craig&rft.aulast=Conyngham&rft.aufirst=Jock&rft.date=2005-07-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2005+Conference+on+Watershed+Management&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/conferences/ws05/ws05_final.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-09-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILITARY TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT MAKUA MILITARY RESERVATION, HAWAII. AN - 36441213; 11645 AB - PURPOSE: The initiation of military training exercises at Makua Military Reservation (MMR), Oahu, Hawaii for units assigned to the 25th Infantry Division (Light) (25th ID(L)) and for other military components is proposed. Other military components that have used MMR in the past include the Marine Corps, Army Reserves, and the Hawaii Army National Guard. Conducting live-fire exercises at the company level and below is critical to maintaining the readiness of all military units assigned or stationed in Hawaii in particular because training at the company level is one of the key building blocks in the Army's progressive training doctrine. Under this doctrine, Soldiers first train as smaller units and then train collectively as part of a large unit. In addition, the training received by a company commander during a company-level combined-arms live-fire exercise (CALFEX) would be invaluable in teaching soldiers the skills required to coordinate and integrate the combined arms support provided by aviation, artillery, mortar, and combat engineer support teams. These communication and coordination skills are essential when several companies combine as a battalion under the control of a battalion commander. Three action alternatives to accomplish the proposed training on Oahu are considered in this draft EIS: Alternative 1) reduced capacity use with some weapons restrictions; Alternative 2) full capacity use with some weapons restrictions, and Alternative 3) full capacity use with fewer weapons restrictions). Alternative 3 is the Army's preferred alternative. A No Action Alternative, under which no military training would be conducted, is also evaluated. Under all action alternatives, MMR would be used over 242 training days per year. Alternative 1 would involve conducting up to 19 to 28 company-level CALFEXs per year. Alternatives 2 and 3 involve conducting up to 50 company-level CALFEXs per year. Weapon systems used for all three training alternatives would be similar to those used during current training. In addition to the current weapons systems, Alternative 2 would incorporate the use of tracer ammunition. Alternative 3 would add tracer ammunition; inert, tube-launched, optically- tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles; 2.75-caliber rockets; and illumination munitions. Alternative 3 also would include use of an expanded training area that would utilize the ridge between the north and south lobes of the training area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The training exercises allowed under the preferred alternative would help prepare and maintain the readiness of the 25th ID(L)) and other military components to respond in the event of war or serious civil domestic incident, ensuring public safety and deterring domestic terrorists and external enemies of the United States for acts of war. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The training exercises, particularly those involving the use of explosives, would result in the contamination of soil, surface water, groundwater, air quality; disturbance or destruction of cultural resource sites; damage to wildlife habitat, including endangered and threatened species; excessive noise emissions; degradation of recreational resources; and hazards related to wildfires and other safety risks, Transport accidents involving munitions movements through the Waianae community would present a minor public health hazard, as the likelihood of an accident would be small. JF - EPA number: 050292, 781 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fires KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Honolulu KW - Makua Military Reservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+TRAINING+ACTIVITIES+AT+MAKUA+MILITARY+RESERVATION%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=MILITARY+TRAINING+ACTIVITIES+AT+MAKUA+MILITARY+RESERVATION%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36437933; 11647 AB - PURPOSE: The reuse of the Mare Island dredged material disposal ponds in the city of Vallejo, Salano County, California as a confined upland disposal facility is proposed. Mare Island encompasses 1,465 acres of dry land and 5,252 acres of tidal and *nontidal wetlands, submerged lands, and dredged material disposal ponds and extends 3.5 miles and is one mile wide at some points; it is bounded by the Napa River and Mare Island Strait to the east, Carquinez Strait to south, and San Pablo Island to the west. The island was the site of the U.S. Navy's Mare Island Naval Shipyard, which was closed on April 1, 1996. The island The disposal ponds were used by the Navy for disposal of dredged material associated with the operation of the shipyard. The ponds were identified in a number of planning and conservation documents as a candidate site for an upland disposal/beneficial reuse facility for dredged material. The project proponents, Weston Solutions, Inc. and the city, would operate seven of the existing ponds as a regional commercial facility for the disposal of dredged material generated by public and private projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Dredged material accepted at the facility would be either suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal of unsuitable for such disposal. Unsuitable material would be limited to sediment meeting the Mare Island acceptance criteria, based primarily on existing conditions. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve the use of seven ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S, and 7). The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 29 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reuse plan would support goals related to disposal of dredged materials in the San Francisco Bay region at an upland site to minimize dredged materials going into the bay or the ocean and for beneficial reuse of the material. In addition, the plan would support the regional need for an upland disposal site to place dredged materials that are unsuitable for aquatic disposal, support federal commitments related to the closure of the shipyard, enable the beneficial reuse of surplus government property, and implement the base reuse plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee slope and seismic stability, settlement of dredged materials, decreased water quality during construction and due to runoff and spillage during operations, alteration of drainage patterns, risk of flooding, violation of effluent limits, wetland degradation, and disturbance or loss of habitat for special status fish and terrestrial species, including migratory waterflow, would be concerns, but these problems would be assessed further and addressed before the outset of disposal activities. The area would suffer from increased noise levels and degraded visual aesthetics, as well as occasional releases of unpleasant odors. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10. U.S.C. 2687), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 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: 050294, 578 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zonex KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 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/36437933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+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, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36383869; 050672D-050294_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reuse of the Mare Island dredged material disposal ponds in the city of Vallejo, Salano County, California as a confined upland disposal facility is proposed. Mare Island encompasses 1,465 acres of dry land and 5,252 acres of tidal and *nontidal wetlands, submerged lands, and dredged material disposal ponds and extends 3.5 miles and is one mile wide at some points; it is bounded by the Napa River and Mare Island Strait to the east, Carquinez Strait to south, and San Pablo Island to the west. The island was the site of the U.S. Navy's Mare Island Naval Shipyard, which was closed on April 1, 1996. The island The disposal ponds were used by the Navy for disposal of dredged material associated with the operation of the shipyard. The ponds were identified in a number of planning and conservation documents as a candidate site for an upland disposal/beneficial reuse facility for dredged material. The project proponents, Weston Solutions, Inc. and the city, would operate seven of the existing ponds as a regional commercial facility for the disposal of dredged material generated by public and private projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Dredged material accepted at the facility would be either suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal of unsuitable for such disposal. Unsuitable material would be limited to sediment meeting the Mare Island acceptance criteria, based primarily on existing conditions. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve the use of seven ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S, and 7). The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 29 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reuse plan would support goals related to disposal of dredged materials in the San Francisco Bay region at an upland site to minimize dredged materials going into the bay or the ocean and for beneficial reuse of the material. In addition, the plan would support the regional need for an upland disposal site to place dredged materials that are unsuitable for aquatic disposal, support federal commitments related to the closure of the shipyard, enable the beneficial reuse of surplus government property, and implement the base reuse plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee slope and seismic stability, settlement of dredged materials, decreased water quality during construction and due to runoff and spillage during operations, alteration of drainage patterns, risk of flooding, violation of effluent limits, wetland degradation, and disturbance or loss of habitat for special status fish and terrestrial species, including migratory waterflow, would be concerns, but these problems would be assessed further and addressed before the outset of disposal activities. The area would suffer from increased noise levels and degraded visual aesthetics, as well as occasional releases of unpleasant odors. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10. U.S.C. 2687), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 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: 050294, 578 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zonex KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 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/36383869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+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, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILITARY TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT MAKUA MILITARY RESERVATION, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MILITARY TRAINING ACTIVITIES AT MAKUA MILITARY RESERVATION, HAWAII. AN - 36378773; 050458D-050292_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The initiation of military training exercises at Makua Military Reservation (MMR), Oahu, Hawaii for units assigned to the 25th Infantry Division (Light) (25th ID(L)) and for other military components is proposed. Other military components that have used MMR in the past include the Marine Corps, Army Reserves, and the Hawaii Army National Guard. Conducting live-fire exercises at the company level and below is critical to maintaining the readiness of all military units assigned or stationed in Hawaii in particular because training at the company level is one of the key building blocks in the Army's progressive training doctrine. Under this doctrine, Soldiers first train as smaller units and then train collectively as part of a large unit. In addition, the training received by a company commander during a company-level combined-arms live-fire exercise (CALFEX) would be invaluable in teaching soldiers the skills required to coordinate and integrate the combined arms support provided by aviation, artillery, mortar, and combat engineer support teams. These communication and coordination skills are essential when several companies combine as a battalion under the control of a battalion commander. Three action alternatives to accomplish the proposed training on Oahu are considered in this draft EIS: Alternative 1) reduced capacity use with some weapons restrictions; Alternative 2) full capacity use with some weapons restrictions, and Alternative 3) full capacity use with fewer weapons restrictions). Alternative 3 is the Army's preferred alternative. A No Action Alternative, under which no military training would be conducted, is also evaluated. Under all action alternatives, MMR would be used over 242 training days per year. Alternative 1 would involve conducting up to 19 to 28 company-level CALFEXs per year. Alternatives 2 and 3 involve conducting up to 50 company-level CALFEXs per year. Weapon systems used for all three training alternatives would be similar to those used during current training. In addition to the current weapons systems, Alternative 2 would incorporate the use of tracer ammunition. Alternative 3 would add tracer ammunition; inert, tube-launched, optically- tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles; 2.75-caliber rockets; and illumination munitions. Alternative 3 also would include use of an expanded training area that would utilize the ridge between the north and south lobes of the training area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The training exercises allowed under the preferred alternative would help prepare and maintain the readiness of the 25th ID(L)) and other military components to respond in the event of war or serious civil domestic incident, ensuring public safety and deterring domestic terrorists and external enemies of the United States for acts of war. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The training exercises, particularly those involving the use of explosives, would result in the contamination of soil, surface water, groundwater, air quality; disturbance or destruction of cultural resource sites; damage to wildlife habitat, including endangered and threatened species; excessive noise emissions; degradation of recreational resources; and hazards related to wildfires and other safety risks, Transport accidents involving munitions movements through the Waianae community would present a minor public health hazard, as the likelihood of an accident would be small. JF - EPA number: 050292, 781 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fires KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Honolulu KW - Makua Military Reservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILITARY+TRAINING+ACTIVITIES+AT+MAKUA+MILITARY+RESERVATION%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=MILITARY+TRAINING+ACTIVITIES+AT+MAKUA+MILITARY+RESERVATION%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36374204; 050672D-050294_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reuse of the Mare Island dredged material disposal ponds in the city of Vallejo, Salano County, California as a confined upland disposal facility is proposed. Mare Island encompasses 1,465 acres of dry land and 5,252 acres of tidal and *nontidal wetlands, submerged lands, and dredged material disposal ponds and extends 3.5 miles and is one mile wide at some points; it is bounded by the Napa River and Mare Island Strait to the east, Carquinez Strait to south, and San Pablo Island to the west. The island was the site of the U.S. Navy's Mare Island Naval Shipyard, which was closed on April 1, 1996. The island The disposal ponds were used by the Navy for disposal of dredged material associated with the operation of the shipyard. The ponds were identified in a number of planning and conservation documents as a candidate site for an upland disposal/beneficial reuse facility for dredged material. The project proponents, Weston Solutions, Inc. and the city, would operate seven of the existing ponds as a regional commercial facility for the disposal of dredged material generated by public and private projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Dredged material accepted at the facility would be either suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal of unsuitable for such disposal. Unsuitable material would be limited to sediment meeting the Mare Island acceptance criteria, based primarily on existing conditions. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve the use of seven ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S, and 7). The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 29 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reuse plan would support goals related to disposal of dredged materials in the San Francisco Bay region at an upland site to minimize dredged materials going into the bay or the ocean and for beneficial reuse of the material. In addition, the plan would support the regional need for an upland disposal site to place dredged materials that are unsuitable for aquatic disposal, support federal commitments related to the closure of the shipyard, enable the beneficial reuse of surplus government property, and implement the base reuse plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee slope and seismic stability, settlement of dredged materials, decreased water quality during construction and due to runoff and spillage during operations, alteration of drainage patterns, risk of flooding, violation of effluent limits, wetland degradation, and disturbance or loss of habitat for special status fish and terrestrial species, including migratory waterflow, would be concerns, but these problems would be assessed further and addressed before the outset of disposal activities. The area would suffer from increased noise levels and degraded visual aesthetics, as well as occasional releases of unpleasant odors. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10. U.S.C. 2687), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 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: 050294, 578 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zonex KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 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/36374204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Limit+Analysis+of+Foundation+Engineering+in+High+Building&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - REUSE THE MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISOPSAL PONDS AS A CONFINED UPLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL FACILITY, CITY OF CALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373119; 050672D-050294_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reuse of the Mare Island dredged material disposal ponds in the city of Vallejo, Salano County, California as a confined upland disposal facility is proposed. Mare Island encompasses 1,465 acres of dry land and 5,252 acres of tidal and *nontidal wetlands, submerged lands, and dredged material disposal ponds and extends 3.5 miles and is one mile wide at some points; it is bounded by the Napa River and Mare Island Strait to the east, Carquinez Strait to south, and San Pablo Island to the west. The island was the site of the U.S. Navy's Mare Island Naval Shipyard, which was closed on April 1, 1996. The island The disposal ponds were used by the Navy for disposal of dredged material associated with the operation of the shipyard. The ponds were identified in a number of planning and conservation documents as a candidate site for an upland disposal/beneficial reuse facility for dredged material. The project proponents, Weston Solutions, Inc. and the city, would operate seven of the existing ponds as a regional commercial facility for the disposal of dredged material generated by public and private projects throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Dredged material accepted at the facility would be either suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal of unsuitable for such disposal. Unsuitable material would be limited to sediment meeting the Mare Island acceptance criteria, based primarily on existing conditions. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would involve the use of seven ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S, and 7). The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 29 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reuse plan would support goals related to disposal of dredged materials in the San Francisco Bay region at an upland site to minimize dredged materials going into the bay or the ocean and for beneficial reuse of the material. In addition, the plan would support the regional need for an upland disposal site to place dredged materials that are unsuitable for aquatic disposal, support federal commitments related to the closure of the shipyard, enable the beneficial reuse of surplus government property, and implement the base reuse plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee slope and seismic stability, settlement of dredged materials, decreased water quality during construction and due to runoff and spillage during operations, alteration of drainage patterns, risk of flooding, violation of effluent limits, wetland degradation, and disturbance or loss of habitat for special status fish and terrestrial species, including migratory waterflow, would be concerns, but these problems would be assessed further and addressed before the outset of disposal activities. The area would suffer from increased noise levels and degraded visual aesthetics, as well as occasional releases of unpleasant odors. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10. U.S.C. 2687), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), 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: 050294, 578 pages and maps, July 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zonex KW - Conservation KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 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/36373119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft.genre=dissertations+%26+theses&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Zhang%2C+Li+Juan+Zhang+Li+Juan&rft.aulast=Zhang&rft.aufirst=Li+Juan+Zhang+Li&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Research+on+numerical+analysis+and+design+method+of+scattered+pile+foundation&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Establishment of Diverse Aquatic Plant Communities T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39795912; 3982091 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Smart, R Michael AU - Dick, Gary O AU - Snow, Joe R Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic plants KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39795912?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Establishment+of+Diverse+Aquatic+Plant+Communities&rft.au=Smart%2C+R+Michael%3BDick%2C+Gary+O%3BSnow%2C+Joe+R&rft.aulast=Smart&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Native and Naturalized Insect Herbivores of Invasive Aquatic and Wetland Plants T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39795766; 3982074 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Freedman, Jan E AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Bare, Robin AU - Graham, Julie Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic insects KW - Aquatic plants KW - Wetlands KW - Herbivores KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39795766?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Native+and+Naturalized+Insect+Herbivores+of+Invasive+Aquatic+and+Wetland+Plants&rft.au=Freedman%2C+Jan+E%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BBare%2C+Robin%3BGraham%2C+Julie&rft.aulast=Freedman&rft.aufirst=Jan&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Manipulation of Environmental Conditions to Stress Nuisance Aquatic Plants T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39739430; 3982123 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - James, William F AU - Barko, John W Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Stress KW - Aquatic plants KW - Environmental conditions KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39739430?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Manipulation+of+Environmental+Conditions+to+Stress+Nuisance+Aquatic+Plants&rft.au=James%2C+William+F%3BBarko%2C+John+W&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Impact of Invertebrate Herbivores on Aquatic Macrophyte Biomass T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39739318; 3982056 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Graham, Julie M AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Smart, R Michael Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Macrophytes KW - Biomass KW - Aquatic plants KW - Herbivores KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39739318?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=The+Impact+of+Invertebrate+Herbivores+on+Aquatic+Macrophyte+Biomass&rft.au=Graham%2C+Julie+M%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BSmart%2C+R+Michael&rft.aulast=Graham&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Occurrence of Three Endophytes in Eurasian Watermilfoil T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39679871; 3982089 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Shearer, Judy F Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Endophytes KW - Introduced species KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39679871?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Occurrence+of+Three+Endophytes+in+Eurasian+Watermilfoil&rft.au=Shearer%2C+Judy+F&rft.aulast=Shearer&rft.aufirst=Judy&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Investigations of Torpedograss Seed Viability and the Seed Bank at Selected Sites in the Marsh at Lake Okeechobee, Florida T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39679826; 3982082 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - McFarland, Dwilette G AU - Smith, D H AU - Smart, R Michael AU - Hanlon, C G Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - USA, Florida, Okeechobee L. KW - USA, Florida KW - Marshes KW - Seed banks KW - Lakes KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39679826?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:dissertation&rft.genre=dissertations+%26+theses&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bechtold%2C+Joan+Elizabeth&rft.aulast=Bechtold&rft.aufirst=Joan&rft.date=1987-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Anatomic+design+of+orthopaedic+implants%3A+Parametric+design+analysis+of+an+intramedullary+nail+using+techniques+of+computer+aided+geometric+design+and+analytic+beam+theory&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - An Overview of the Recent Hydrilla Management Issues Workshop in Florida T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39673382; 3982120 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Netherland, Michael D AU - Hoyer, Mark V AU - Allen, Michael S Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - USA, Florida KW - Reviews KW - Hydrilla KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39673382?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=An+Overview+of+the+Recent+Hydrilla+Management+Issues+Workshop+in+Florida&rft.au=Netherland%2C+Michael+D%3BHoyer%2C+Mark+V%3BAllen%2C+Michael+S&rft.aulast=Netherland&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Preliminary Results from a Study to Determine the Effects of Armored Shorelines on Processes within Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Beds in the Oligohaline to Mesohaline Potomac River, Maryland T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39673282; 3982081 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - McFarland, Dwilette G AU - Rybicki, N B AU - Wardwell, R AU - Murphy, R Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - USA, Maryland, Potomac R. KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39673282?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Preliminary+Results+from+a+Study+to+Determine+the+Effects+of+Armored+Shorelines+on+Processes+within+Submersed+Aquatic+Vegetation+Beds+in+the+Oligohaline+to+Mesohaline+Potomac+River%2C+Maryland&rft.au=McFarland%2C+Dwilette+G%3BRybicki%2C+N+B%3BWardwell%2C+R%3BMurphy%2C+R&rft.aulast=McFarland&rft.aufirst=Dwilette&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Overview of the Chemical Control and Physiological Processes Team T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39670331; 3982075 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Getsinger, Kurt D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Reviews KW - Physiology KW - Chemical control KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39670331?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Overview+of+the+Chemical+Control+and+Physiological+Processes+Team&rft.au=Getsinger%2C+Kurt+D&rft.aulast=Getsinger&rft.aufirst=Kurt&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Impact of Herbivory and Plant Competition on the Growth of Hydrilla in Small Ponds T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39665791; 3982132 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Owens, Chetta S AU - Smart, R Michael AU - Graham, Julie M Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Herbivory KW - Competition KW - Ponds KW - Hydrilla KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39665791?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Impact+of+Herbivory+and+Plant+Competition+on+the+Growth+of+Hydrilla+in+Small+Ponds&rft.au=Grodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BOwens%2C+Chetta+S%3BSmart%2C+R+Michael%3BGraham%2C+Julie+M&rft.aulast=Grodowitz&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Mycoleptodiscus Terrestris: Progress Report on Dry Formulation Development T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39665751; 3982130 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Shearer, Judy F AU - Jackson, Mark A Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Progress reports KW - Mycoleptodiscus terrestris KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39665751?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Mycoleptodiscus+Terrestris%3A+Progress+Report+on+Dry+Formulation+Development&rft.au=Shearer%2C+Judy+F%3BJackson%2C+Mark+A&rft.aulast=Shearer&rft.aufirst=Judy&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Impact of Herbicides and Burning on Restoration of a Phragmites-dominated Wetland T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39665584; 3982084 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Nelson, Linda S AU - Glomski, Lee Ann M AU - Getsinger, Kurt D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Marshes KW - Aquatic plants KW - Wetlands KW - Habitat improvement KW - Herbicides KW - Burning KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39665584?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Impact+of+Herbicides+and+Burning+on+Restoration+of+a+Phragmites-dominated+Wetland&rft.au=Nelson%2C+Linda+S%3BGlomski%2C+Lee+Ann+M%3BGetsinger%2C+Kurt+D&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=Linda&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Native Aquatic Plant Founder Colony Establishment: Four Case Histories T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39665526; 3982072 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Dick, Gary O AU - Snow, Joe R AU - Williams, Lynde D AU - Smart, R Michael Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic plants KW - Colonies KW - Historical account KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39665526?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Native+Aquatic+Plant+Founder+Colony+Establishment%3A+Four+Case+Histories&rft.au=Dick%2C+Gary+O%3BSnow%2C+Joe+R%3BWilliams%2C+Lynde+D%3BSmart%2C+R+Michael&rft.aulast=Dick&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Large-scale Rearing of Insect Biological Control Agents for the Management of Aquatic Plants T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39664551; 3982134 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Durham, Brian D AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Jones, Harvey L AU - Owens, Chetta S AU - Graham, Julie M AU - Smart, R Michael Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic insects KW - Biological control KW - Aquatic plants KW - Pest control KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39664551?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Large-scale+Rearing+of+Insect+Biological+Control+Agents+for+the+Management+of+Aquatic+Plants&rft.au=Durham%2C+Brian+D%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BJones%2C+Harvey+L%3BOwens%2C+Chetta+S%3BGraham%2C+Julie+M%3BSmart%2C+R+Michael&rft.aulast=Durham&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Ecological Attributes of Exotic and Native Aquatic Plant Communities T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39658781; 3982090 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Smart, R Michael AU - Dick, Gary O AU - Snow, Joe AU - Smith, Dian H AU - Honnell, David Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic plants KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39658781?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Ecological+Attributes+of+Exotic+and+Native+Aquatic+Plant+Communities&rft.au=Smart%2C+R+Michael%3BDick%2C+Gary+O%3BSnow%2C+Joe%3BSmith%2C+Dian+H%3BHonnell%2C+David&rft.aulast=Smart&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Alligatorweed Biocontrol - Use of Biocontrol Insects to Reduce the Use of Herbicides to Control Invasive Aquatic Plants T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39658734; 3982070 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Ashton, Charles E Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic insects KW - Biological control KW - Aquatic plants KW - Herbicides KW - Introduced species KW - Pest control KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39658734?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Alligatorweed+Biocontrol+-+Use+of+Biocontrol+Insects+to+Reduce+the+Use+of+Herbicides+to+Control+Invasive+Aquatic+Plants&rft.au=Ashton%2C+Charles+E&rft.aulast=Ashton&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Influence of Nutritional Characteristics of Hydrilla Verticillata on Two Biological Control Agents T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39650122; 3982133 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Shearer, Judy F AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Freedman, Jan Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Biological control KW - Nutrition KW - Hydrilla verticillata KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39650122?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Influence+of+Nutritional+Characteristics+of+Hydrilla+Verticillata+on+Two+Biological+Control+Agents&rft.au=Shearer%2C+Judy+F%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BFreedman%2C+Jan&rft.aulast=Shearer&rft.aufirst=Judy&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Integrated Weed Management Strategies for Improved Hydrilla Control T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39649930; 3982085 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Nelson, Linda S AU - Shearer, Judy F Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Weeds KW - Hydrilla KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39649930?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Integrated+Weed+Management+Strategies+for+Improved+Hydrilla+Control&rft.au=Nelson%2C+Linda+S%3BShearer%2C+Judy+F&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=Linda&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Registration of Aquatic Herbicides: A New Model T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39610238; 3982117 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Getsinger, Kurt D AU - Stubbs, Donald R AU - Netherland, Michael D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Models KW - Herbicides KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39610238?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Registration+of+Aquatic+Herbicides%3A+A+New+Model&rft.au=Getsinger%2C+Kurt+D%3BStubbs%2C+Donald+R%3BNetherland%2C+Michael+D&rft.aulast=Getsinger&rft.aufirst=Kurt&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Innovative Solutions for Invasive Species Information Transfer T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39610159; 3982095 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Whitaker, Sherry G AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Jeffers, Lavon Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Introduced species KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39610159?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Innovative+Solutions+for+Invasive+Species+Information+Transfer&rft.au=Whitaker%2C+Sherry+G%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BJeffers%2C+Lavon&rft.aulast=Whitaker&rft.aufirst=Sherry&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Regeneration of Giant Salvinia from Apical and Axillary Buds Following Desiccation or Physical Damage T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39610121; 3982087 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Owens, Chetta S AU - Smart, R Michael AU - Dick, Gary O Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Buds KW - Desiccation KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39610121?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Regeneration+of+Giant+Salvinia+from+Apical+and+Axillary+Buds+Following+Desiccation+or+Physical+Damage&rft.au=Owens%2C+Chetta+S%3BSmart%2C+R+Michael%3BDick%2C+Gary+O&rft.aulast=Owens&rft.aufirst=Chetta&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Experimental Effects of Lime Application on Aquatic Macrophytes T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39610081; 3982077 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - James, William F AU - Eakin, Harry L AU - Barko, John W Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Macrophytes KW - Aquatic plants KW - Lime KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39610081?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Experimental+Effects+of+Lime+Application+on+Aquatic+Macrophytes&rft.au=James%2C+William+F%3BEakin%2C+Harry+L%3BBarko%2C+John+W&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Concentration/Exposure Time Study of Endothall Against Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39609796; 3982088 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Poovey, Angela G AU - Getsinger, Kurt D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Hydrilla KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39609796?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Concentration%2FExposure+Time+Study+of+Endothall+Against+Monoecious+and+Dioecious+Hydrilla&rft.au=Poovey%2C+Angela+G%3BGetsinger%2C+Kurt+D&rft.aulast=Poovey&rft.aufirst=Angela&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Evaluation of Aquashade Dye for Growth Inhibition of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39609610; 3982062 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Glomski, Lee Ann M AU - Netherland, Michael D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Vegetation KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39609610?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+Aquashade+Dye+for+Growth+Inhibition+of+Submersed+Aquatic+Vegetation&rft.au=Glomski%2C+Lee+Ann+M%3BNetherland%2C+Michael+D&rft.aulast=Glomski&rft.aufirst=Lee+Ann&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Selective Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil and Curlyleaf Pondweed Using Low Application Rates of Endothall Combined with 2,4-D T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39609556; 3982060 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Skogerboe, John G AU - Getsinger, Kurt D Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid KW - 2,4-D KW - Introduced species KW - Plant control KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39609556?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Selective+Control+of+Eurasian+Watermilfoil+and+Curlyleaf+Pondweed+Using+Low+Application+Rates+of+Endothall+Combined+with+2%2C4-D&rft.au=Skogerboe%2C+John+G%3BGetsinger%2C+Kurt+D&rft.aulast=Skogerboe&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - When Does an Insect Biocontrol Agent Become Operational? T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39603825; 3982129 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Grodowitz, Michael J Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - Aquatic insects KW - Biological control KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39603825?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=When+Does+an+Insect+Biocontrol+Agent+Become+Operational%3F&rft.au=Grodowitz%2C+Michael+J&rft.aulast=Grodowitz&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Status of the Biological Control Agents Neochetina spp./Hydrellia spp. for Waterhyacinth/Hydrilla Management in the Lower Rio Grande Valley T2 - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AN - 39603550; 3982080 JF - 45th Annual Meeting of the Aquatic Plant Management Society AU - Lewis, Sonya F AU - Freedman, Jan E AU - Grodowitz, Michael J AU - Jeffers, Lavon AU - Nibling, Fred Y1 - 2005/07/10/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jul 10 KW - USA, New Mexico, Lower Rio Grande KW - Biological control KW - Hydrellia KW - Hydrilla KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39603550?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=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.atitle=Status+of+the+Biological+Control+Agents+Neochetina+spp.%2FHydrellia+spp.+for+Waterhyacinth%2FHydrilla+Management+in+the+Lower+Rio+Grande+Valley&rft.au=Lewis%2C+Sonya+F%3BFreedman%2C+Jan+E%3BGrodowitz%2C+Michael+J%3BJeffers%2C+Lavon%3BNibling%2C+Fred&rft.aulast=Lewis&rft.aufirst=Sonya&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.apms.org/2005/Program.pdf LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE WYOMING VALLEY LEVEE RAISING PROJECT AT THE WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA RIVER COMMONS, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1996). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE WYOMING VALLEY LEVEE RAISING PROJECT AT THE WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA RIVER COMMONS, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1996). AN - 36383300; 050697F-050285_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of design modifications and recreational enhancements to the Wyoming Valley Levee Raising Project at the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania River Commons, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania is proposed. Federal flood control projects along the Susquehanna River have protected communities in the Wyoming Valley of northeastern Pennsylvania since the late 1930s. However, in June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes struck and the Susquehanna overtopped the levee system in the Wyoming Valley, causing severe damage in many communities. In 1986, Congress authorized raising the Wyoming Valley levee system and implementing other flood damage reduction measures. Construction of the levee-raising project began in the spring of 1997 and continues today. The final EIS on the levee raising project, available in February 1996, considered five action alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, and selected Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 included the addition of two portals through the levee, a river landing, a fishing platform and dock, and an amphitheater and stage. The other alternatives considered in the final supplement included a No Action Alternative (Alternative 6) and alternatives representing fewer recreational features than those proposed in the preferred alternative. The proposed action would maintain the level of flood protection necessary under the originally proposed levee raising project, but would also reconnect Wilkes-Barre to the Susquehanna River. In urbanized areas of the valley, including Wilkes-Barre, the levee and floodwall system have created a physical, psychological, and aesthetic barrier separating the community from the Susquehanna. This draft supplement to the final supplemental EIS considers the same five alternatives as were considered in the final supplement, along with design modifications and recreational enhancements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The currently proposed modifications to the project would help reclaim the river as a civic resource in the daily life of residents and visitors and would help to make the river a unique amenity for the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result the a permanent increase in the extent of rock-covered benthic habitat due the creation of a groin base and of fish habitat at the edge of the river landing, the permanent removal of mature sycamore, silver maple, and elm trees upstream of the Market Street Bridge to enhance the view from the portal and permit the construction of stairs and ramps, the permanent loss of a 30-foot-wide band of riparian shrub fringe along the downstream bank of the river front. Construction activities would increase river turbidity temporarily. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0082D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050285, 171 pages and maps, July 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Urban Structures KW - Vegetation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Susquehanna 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/36383300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&rft.title=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE WYOMING VALLEY LEVEE RAISING PROJECT AT THE WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA RIVER COMMONS, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1996). AN - 16342612; 11609 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of design modifications and recreational enhancements to the Wyoming Valley Levee Raising Project at the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania River Commons, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania is proposed. Federal flood control projects along the Susquehanna River have protected communities in the Wyoming Valley of northeastern Pennsylvania since the late 1930s. However, in June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes struck and the Susquehanna overtopped the levee system in the Wyoming Valley, causing severe damage in many communities. In 1986, Congress authorized raising the Wyoming Valley levee system and implementing other flood damage reduction measures. Construction of the levee-raising project began in the spring of 1997 and continues today. The final EIS on the levee raising project, available in February 1996, considered five action alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, and selected Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 included the addition of two portals through the levee, a river landing, a fishing platform and dock, and an amphitheater and stage. The other alternatives considered in the final supplement included a No Action Alternative (Alternative 6) and alternatives representing fewer recreational features than those proposed in the preferred alternative. The proposed action would maintain the level of flood protection necessary under the originally proposed levee raising project, but would also reconnect Wilkes-Barre to the Susquehanna River. In urbanized areas of the valley, including Wilkes-Barre, the levee and floodwall system have created a physical, psychological, and aesthetic barrier separating the community from the Susquehanna. This draft supplement to the final supplemental EIS considers the same five alternatives as were considered in the final supplement, along with design modifications and recreational enhancements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The currently proposed modifications to the project would help reclaim the river as a civic resource in the daily life of residents and visitors and would help to make the river a unique amenity for the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result the a permanent increase in the extent of rock-covered benthic habitat due the creation of a groin base and of fish habitat at the edge of the river landing, the permanent removal of mature sycamore, silver maple, and elm trees upstream of the Market Street Bridge to enhance the view from the portal and permit the construction of stairs and ramps, the permanent loss of a 30-foot-wide band of riparian shrub fringe along the downstream bank of the river front. Construction activities would increase river turbidity temporarily. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0082D, Volume 29, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050285, 171 pages and maps, July 8, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Urban Structures KW - Vegetation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Susquehanna 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/16342612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&rft.title=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of dose and particle size on activated carbon treatment to sequester polychlorinated biphenyls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in marine sediments AN - 51595211; 2006-037034 AB - Recent laboratory studies show that mixing activated carbon with contaminated sediment reduces the chemical and biological availability of hydrophobic organic contaminants. In this study, we test the effects of varying the activated carbon dose and particle size in reducing the aqueous availability of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the uptake of PCBs by two benthic organisms. We mixed PCB- and PAH-contaminated sediment from Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, San Francisco Bay (CA, USA), for one month with activated carbon, at doses of 0.34, 1.7, and 3.4% dry mass basis. We found that increasing the carbon dose increased the effectiveness in reducing PCB bioaccumulation. In 56-d uptake tests with the benthic organisms Neanthes arenaceodentata and Leptocheirus plumulosus, PCB bioaccumulation was reduced by 93 and 90%, respectively, with 3.4% carbon. Increasing the dose also increased the effectiveness in reducing PCB and PAH aqueous concentrations and uptake by semipermeable membrane devices and quiescent flux of PCBs to overlying water. Decreasing activated carbon particle size increased treatment effectiveness in reducing PCB aqueous concentration, and larger-sized activated carbon (400-1,700 mu m) was ineffective with a contact period of one month. We invoke a numerical model based on intraparticle diffusion in sediment and activated carbon particles to help interpret our experimental results. This model was useful in explaining the trends for the effect of activated carbon dose and particle size on PCB aqueous concentrations in well-mixed systems. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Zimmerman, John R AU - Werner, David AU - Ghosh, Upal AU - Millward, Rod N AU - Bridges, Todd S AU - Luthy, Richard G Y1 - 2005/07// PY - 2005 DA - July 2005 SP - 1594 EP - 1601 PB - Pergamon, New York, NY VL - 24 IS - 7 SN - 0730-7268, 0730-7268 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - sea water KW - PCBs KW - bioavailability KW - Hunter Point Naval Shipyard KW - bioaccumulation KW - California KW - San Francisco Bay KW - sediments KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - ecology KW - particulate materials KW - depositional environment KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - physicochemical properties KW - pollution KW - biota KW - habitat KW - organic compounds KW - detection KW - marine environment KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - military facilities KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51595211?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=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Effects+of+dose+and+particle+size+on+activated+carbon+treatment+to+sequester+polychlorinated+biphenyls+and+polycyclic+aromatic+hydrocarbons+in+marine+sediments&rft.au=Zimmerman%2C+John+R%3BWerner%2C+David%3BGhosh%2C+Upal%3BMillward%2C+Rod+N%3BBridges%2C+Todd+S%3BLuthy%2C+Richard+G&rft.aulast=Zimmerman&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1594&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=07307268&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122563640/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aromatic hydrocarbons; bioaccumulation; bioavailability; biota; California; chlorinated hydrocarbons; concentration; depositional environment; detection; ecology; experimental studies; habitat; halogenated hydrocarbons; Hunter Point Naval Shipyard; hydrocarbons; marine environment; military facilities; numerical models; organic compounds; particulate materials; PCBs; physicochemical properties; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; San Francisco Bay; sea water; sediments; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geomorphic analysis of Mattituck Inlet and Goldsmith Inlet, Long Island, New York AN - 51288216; 2008-027466 JF - ERDC/CHL Technical Report AU - Morgan, Michael J AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - McDonald, Jodi M Y1 - 2005/07// PY - 2005 DA - July 2005 SP - 303 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS KW - United States KW - Mattituck Inlet KW - Goldsmith Inlet KW - shore features KW - ocean circulation KW - shoals KW - numerical models KW - erosion KW - landform evolution KW - channels KW - surficial geology KW - landforms KW - glacial features KW - tides KW - Suffolk County New York KW - inlets KW - New York KW - sediments KW - bathymetry KW - Long Island KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51288216?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=Morgan%2C+Michael+J%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3BMcDonald%2C+Jodi+M&rft.aulast=Morgan&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Geomorphic+analysis+of+Mattituck+Inlet+and+Goldsmith+Inlet%2C+Long+Island%2C+New+York&rft.title=Geomorphic+analysis+of+Mattituck+Inlet+and+Goldsmith+Inlet%2C+Long+Island%2C+New+York&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 98 N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 30 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #05953 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bathymetry; channels; erosion; glacial features; Goldsmith Inlet; inlets; landform evolution; landforms; Long Island; Mattituck Inlet; New York; numerical models; ocean circulation; sediments; shoals; shore features; Suffolk County New York; surficial geology; tides; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36379287; 050696F-050280_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36379239; 050696F-050280_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36379149; 050696F-050280_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36378129; 050696F-050280_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36374357; 050696F-050280_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36373350; 050696F-050280_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36373299; 050696F-050280_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 36372015; 050696F-050280_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative Response of Two Hydrilla Strains to Fluridone AN - 20611320; 6655004 AB - Strain B was 47.8 mu g ai L super(-1) and 3.14 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain A. For a plant biomass study, hydrilla shoots from Strains A and B were potted and placed in 52-L aquaria, grown to pre-canopy condition, then dosed with 0, 0.05, 0.5, 5, 50, 500, and 5000 mu g ai L super(-1) fluridone for a 90-d exposure time. The GR sub(50) for shoot biomass was 37.6 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain B and 5.78 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain A. Root biomass was negatively affected by fluridone concentrations, but not by strain. Based on these results, Strain B of hydrilla exhibited symptoms of fluridone resistance. With fluridone resistant hydrilla present in 20 Florida lakes, development of new chemistries with different modes-of-action is needed to establish a management program. Experiments were conducted in a controlled-environmen-tal growth chamber to evaluate the response of two strains of the invasive submersed plant Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle to fluridone (1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone). To assess plant injury, shoots were potted and placed in 10-L aquaria, grown to pre-canopy condition, then dosed with 0, 0.5, 5, 50, 500, and 5000 mu g L super(-1) active ingredient (ai) fluridone for a 91-d exposure period. Apical tissues were analyzed for ( beta -carotene pigment concentrations at intervals during the herbicide exposure period. The I sub(50), based on beta -carotene concentrations, was 17.9 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain B and 3.68 beta g ai L super(-1) for Strain A after 7 days. After 30 days, the I sub(50) for Strain B was 47.8 mu g ai L super(-1) and 3.14 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain A. For a plant biomass study, hydrilla shoots from Strains A and B were potted and placed in 52-L aquaria, grown to pre-canopy condition, then dosed with 0, 0.05, 0.5, 5, 50, 500, and 5000 mu g ai L super(-1) fluridone for a 90-d exposure time. The GR sub(50) for shoot bio-mass was 37.6 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain B and 5.78 mu g ai L super(-1) for Strain A. Root biomass was negatively affected by fluridone concentrations, but not by strain. Based on these results, Strain B of hydrilla exhibited symptoms of fluridone resistance. With fluridone resistant hydrilla present in 20 Florida lakes, development of new chemistries with different modes-of-action is needed to establish a management program. JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Poovey, A G AU - Getsinger, K D AU - Stewart, AB AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, Angela.G.Poovey@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/07// PY - 2005 DA - Jul 2005 SP - 85 EP - 90 PB - Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc., PO Box 1477 Lehigh Acres FL 33970 USA VL - 43 IS - 2 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Fluridone KW - Strain A KW - Strain B KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - USA, Florida KW - Injuries KW - Roots KW - Freshwater KW - Strain KW - Hydrilla verticillata KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Resistance KW - Exposure KW - Pigments KW - shoots KW - Ecosystem management KW - plant biomass KW - Chemical control KW - Aquatic plants KW - Herbicides KW - Pest control KW - Biomass KW - Strains KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Control resistance KW - Plant control KW - Growth Chambers KW - Introduced species KW - Environment management KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - Q1 08485:Species interactions: pests and control KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20611320?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=Comparative+Response+of+Two+Hydrilla+Strains+to+Fluridone&rft.au=Poovey%2C+A+G%3BGetsinger%2C+K+D%3BStewart%2C+AB&rft.aulast=Poovey&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=85&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chemical control; Aquatic plants; Roots; Pest control; Herbicides; Strains; Biomass; Freshwater weeds; Control resistance; Lakes; Plant control; Ecosystem management; Introduced species; Environment management; Injuries; Pigments; shoots; plant biomass; Aquatic Plants; Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae); Resistance; Exposure; Growth Chambers; Strain; Hydrilla verticillata; USA, Florida; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative Efficacy of Diquat for Control of Two Members of the Hydrocharitaceae: Elodea and Hydrilla AN - 19726492; 6655008 JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Glomskt, LAM AU - Skogerboe, J G AU - Getsinger, K D AD - Purdue University, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility, 201 E. Jones St., Lewisville, TX 75057, USA, glomskl@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2005/07// PY - 2005 DA - Jul 2005 SP - 103 EP - 105 PB - Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc., PO Box 1477 Lehigh Acres FL 33970 USA VL - 43 IS - 2 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Comparative studies KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Diquat KW - Elodea KW - Chemical control KW - Aquatic plants KW - Pest control KW - Herbicides KW - Freshwater KW - Inland water environment KW - Control resistance KW - Efficiency KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Plant control KW - Hydrilla KW - Ecosystem management KW - USA, Texas KW - Environment management KW - Hydrocharitaceae KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - Q1 08485:Species interactions: pests and control KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19726492?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=Comparative+Efficacy+of+Diquat+for+Control+of+Two+Members+of+the+Hydrocharitaceae%3A+Elodea+and+Hydrilla&rft.au=Glomskt%2C+LAM%3BSkogerboe%2C+J+G%3BGetsinger%2C+K+D&rft.aulast=Glomskt&rft.aufirst=LAM&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=103&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Efficiency; Plant control; Chemical control; Ecosystem management; Aquatic plants; Herbicides; Pest control; Environment management; Inland water environment; Control resistance; Diquat; Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae); Aquatic Plants; Elodea; Hydrilla; Hydrocharitaceae; USA, Texas; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The Effects of Livestock on California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus Beecheyii) AN - 17621838; 6409205 AB - Understanding the impacts of livestock grazing on wildlands is important for making appropriate ecosystem management decisions. Using livestock exclosures, we examined the effects of moderate cattle grazing on the abundance of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyii Richardson) and the spatial distribution of active burrows within their colonies in grassland and blue oak (Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn.) savanna habitats in the coastal range of California over a 3-year period (1991-1994). Overall, relative population densities of California ground squirrels declined significantly throughout the experiment, but did not differ between grazed and ungrazed colonies or between habitats. There was also no significant interaction between these 2 factors. The spatial distribution of burrows, as measured by the mean nearest neighbor distance of active entrances within a colony, did not differ significantly between grazed and ungrazed colonies or between habitats, nor was the interaction significant. Thus, low to moderate levels of cattle grazing did not appear to have a strong effect on the population dynamics of California ground squirrels, and grazing may be compatible with maintenance of ground squirrel populations. Based on multivariate analysis of variance of 1994 data, live plant cover, native plant cover, and standing biomass were lower where the number of burrows was higher on grazed colonies but were little affected on ungrazed colonies. Ground squirrels may increase the impact of livestock grazing and thus reduce the capacity of the land to support other activities. However, it is clear that the effects of livestock grazing are complex and that detailed studies of potential mechanisms by which grazing impacts California ground squirrel populations are necessary.Original Abstract: Entender el impacto del apacentamiento del ganado en tierras silvestres es importante para tomar decisiones apropiadas sobre el manejo de los ecosistemas. Durante un periodo de tres anos (1991-1994) y usando exclusiones de ganado, examinamos los efectos del apacentamiento moderado en la abundancia de ardillas terrestres de California (Spermophilus beecheyii) y la distribucion espacial de madrigueras activas dentro de sus colonias en habitats de pastizal y 'Blue oak' (Quercus douglasii) en la region costera de California, USA. En general, las densidades relativaas de la poblacion de ardillas declino significativamente durante el experimento, pero no hubo diferencia entre colonias con apacentamiento pastoreo y sin apacentamiento, ni entre habitats. Tampoco hubo interaccion significativa entre estos dos factores. La distribucion espacial de madrigueras, medida por la distancia promedio del vecino mas cercano de entradas activas dentro de una colonia, no difirio significativamente entre las colonias apacentadas y no apacentadas ni entre habitats, ni la interaccion fue significativa. Asi, niveles de apacentamiento bajos a moderados no parecieron tener un efecto fuerte sobre las dinamicas de la poblacion de ardillas, y el apacentamiento puede ser compatible con el mantenimiento de poblaciones de ardillas. Basado en el analisis de varianza multiple de datos de 1994, la cobertura de plantas vivas, cobertura de plantas nativas, y la biomasa en pie, fueron menores donde el numero de madrigueras era mayor en colonias con apacentamiento, pero fueron pocos afectadas en colonias sin pastoreo. Las ardillas terrestres de California pueden aumentar el impacto del apacentamiento del ganado y por consiguiente reducir la capacidad de la tierra para sostener otras actividades. Sin embargo, es claro que los efectos del apacentamiento del ganado son complejos y que son necesarios estudios detallados sobre los mecanismos potenciales por los cuales el apacentamiento impacta las poblaciones de ardillas terrestres de California. JF - Rangeland Ecology & Management AU - Fehmi, J S AU - Russo, SE AU - Bartolome, J W AD - Research Ecologist, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Military Lands Program, 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign, IL 61821 Y1 - 2005/07// PY - 2005 DA - Jul 2005 SP - 352 EP - 359 PB - Society for Range Management VL - 58 IS - 4 SN - 1550-7424, 1550-7424 KW - Blue oak KW - California ground squirrel KW - Spermophilus beecheyii KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - D 04700:Management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17621838?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=Rangeland+Ecology+%26+Management&rft.atitle=The+Effects+of+Livestock+on+California+Ground+Squirrels+%28Spermophilus+Beecheyii%29&rft.au=Fehmi%2C+J+S%3BRusso%2C+SE%3BBartolome%2C+J+W&rft.aulast=Fehmi&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=352&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Rangeland+Ecology+%26+Management&rft.issn=15507424&rft_id=info:doi/10.2111%2F1551-5028%282005%290582.0.CO%3B2 L2 - http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1550-7424&volume=58&issue=4&page=352 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/1551-5028(2005)058[0352:TEOLOC]2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA. AN - 16358542; 11604 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation of the southeastern portion of the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) around Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida is proposed. The study area around the lake includes parts of Glades, Hendry, Martin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach counties. The HHD was originally constructed as a series of embankments by local interests, circa 1915, to provide flood protection and irrigation water. The embankments were improved to the current levee system by the Corps of Engineers during the 1930s and 1940s. Major culvert modifications were made in the 1970s. Sine then, only as-needed repairs have been made to the system. Recent high-water events and major boils and pipings around the dike have suggested the need for major rehabilitation. The Corps is preparing a series of Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Reports (MRER) to document seepage and stability concerns and provide rehabilitation options. The initial MRER and draft EIS of July 1999 focused on the southeastern portion of the HHD (Reach One) and considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative for rehabilitation. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve installation of a seepage berm with a relief trench along the lower portion of the landward toe of the embankment. In areas where the embankment toe rests on a peat layer, construction of the seepage berm would begin with excavation of peat material from the landside toe. The berm would lie along the lower portion of the embankment tow to a point approximately 40 feet landward of the intersection of the toe with existing terrain. The berm would consist of a one-foot-think layer of filter sand overlain by a five-foot-thick layer of filter stone. The upper surface of the berm would be covered with a sand/soil layer to allow for he establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. The draft supplemental EIS of March 2005 considered five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative included a previous cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprint. The preferred alternative is retained in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The implementation of the project would improve slope stability and seepage control and reduce the probability of a breach along Reach One of the HHD. Rehabilitation of the system would protect life, property, and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have minimal adverse effects on area hydrology, water supply, water quality, and water management. Alteration of local hydrology could affect farmers if the availability of irrigation water were affected. Excavation and fill of low quality wetlands would be required along the landward toe of the dike. The foraging habitat for wading birds, including federally protected species, along the landward toe ditches would be altered, and reptiles, amphibians, and fish utilizing these ditches would be lost during construction. Aesthetics and recreational resources would be impaired during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1930. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050280, 228 pages, July 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Irrigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Coastal Zone Management Act, Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1930, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 67, MADISON, WAYNE, AND BUTLER COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROUTE 67, MADISON, WAYNE, AND BUTLER COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36377969; 050653F-050277_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 85-mile stretch of Route 67 from a point south of Fredericktown to a point just south of Neelyville in Madison, Wayne, and Butler counties, Missouri is proposed. The highway is carrying a vehicle volume similar to that of Interstate 55, though the facilities provided by the highway do not meet freeway standards. The matrix of build alternatives considered in this draft EIS consists of the following: three at Cherokee Pass, three at the Route N intersection in Madison County, three at the Route 34 intersection at Silva, two at Widows Creek in the vicinity of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Wayne County, two at the Route 160 intersection in Butler County, and two at Neelyville. Each build alternative incorporates a typical cross-section characterized by two travel lanes in each direction within a minimum right-of-way of 250 feet. However, due to the severity of grades and the need for service roads, the right-of-way width would in most cases be wider, in some areas as wide as 650 feet. The facility would be functionally classified as a principal arterial with an average daily traffic volume of greater than 1,700 vehicles. Design speed of the facility would be 70 miles per hour. In addition the relocation build alternatives, this final EIS considers the No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit facilities, and an upgrade of existing Route 67 on the existing alignment. The alignment of the preferred build alternative would extend 70.85 miles. Access to the facility would be controlled via 17 interchanges. Cost of the project is estimated at $521.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improved highway would accommodate projected traffic demand increases, correct existing roadway deficiencies, and improve safety within the corridor. The number of sensitive receptors within the corridor experiencing noise in excess of federal standards would decline from 131 to 73. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 2,417 acres, would result in displacement of 115 residential units, 33 mobile homes, 45 commercial establishments, 395.6 acres of agricultural land, 567.8 acres of prime and unique farmland, 69.2 acres of land developed for commercial purposes, and 2.5 acres of public/semi-public land. With respect to the natural environment, rights-of-way development would displace 146.6 acres of wetlands, 1,499.9 acres of forested land, and 346.4 acres of floodplain. The alignment would cross 23 perennial streams and 58 intermittent streams. One historic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one site potentially eligible for inclusion in the register would be affected. Access to Route 67 via existing roads would be altered or eliminated at 78 locations. Construction workers could encounter as many as 15 sites containing 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, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0333D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050277, 381 pages and maps, June 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/36377969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 67, MADISON, WAYNE, AND BUTLER COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 16345986; 11601 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 85-mile stretch of Route 67 from a point south of Fredericktown to a point just south of Neelyville in Madison, Wayne, and Butler counties, Missouri is proposed. The highway is carrying a vehicle volume similar to that of Interstate 55, though the facilities provided by the highway do not meet freeway standards. The matrix of build alternatives considered in this draft EIS consists of the following: three at Cherokee Pass, three at the Route N intersection in Madison County, three at the Route 34 intersection at Silva, two at Widows Creek in the vicinity of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Wayne County, two at the Route 160 intersection in Butler County, and two at Neelyville. Each build alternative incorporates a typical cross-section characterized by two travel lanes in each direction within a minimum right-of-way of 250 feet. However, due to the severity of grades and the need for service roads, the right-of-way width would in most cases be wider, in some areas as wide as 650 feet. The facility would be functionally classified as a principal arterial with an average daily traffic volume of greater than 1,700 vehicles. Design speed of the facility would be 70 miles per hour. In addition the relocation build alternatives, this final EIS considers the No Action Alternative, transportation system management, mass transit facilities, and an upgrade of existing Route 67 on the existing alignment. The alignment of the preferred build alternative would extend 70.85 miles. Access to the facility would be controlled via 17 interchanges. Cost of the project is estimated at $521.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improved highway would accommodate projected traffic demand increases, correct existing roadway deficiencies, and improve safety within the corridor. The number of sensitive receptors within the corridor experiencing noise in excess of federal standards would decline from 131 to 73. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 2,417 acres, would result in displacement of 115 residential units, 33 mobile homes, 45 commercial establishments, 395.6 acres of agricultural land, 567.8 acres of prime and unique farmland, 69.2 acres of land developed for commercial purposes, and 2.5 acres of public/semi-public land. With respect to the natural environment, rights-of-way development would displace 146.6 acres of wetlands, 1,499.9 acres of forested land, and 346.4 acres of floodplain. The alignment would cross 23 perennial streams and 58 intermittent streams. One historic site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one site potentially eligible for inclusion in the register would be affected. Access to Route 67 via existing roads would be altered or eliminated at 78 locations. Construction workers could encounter as many as 15 sites containing 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, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0333D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050277, 381 pages and maps, June 30, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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/16345986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ROUTE+67%2C+MADISON%2C+WAYNE%2C+AND+BUTLER+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JANESVILLE TO WATERTOWN, STH 26, ROCK, JEFFERSON, AND DODGE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - JANESVILLE TO WATERTOWN, STH 26, ROCK, JEFFERSON, AND DODGE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36378136; 050652F-050275_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 48 miles of State Trunk Highway (STH) 26 from the Interstate 90 (I-90) on the north side of Janesville to STH 60 East north of Watertown in Rock, Jefferson, and Dodge counties, Wisconsin is proposed. A primary arterial, STH 26 accommodates the commodity transport of goods and services as a federal and/or state truck route and provides communities along the corridor with access to local and regional services. Traffic volumes along the study corridor are high and capacity and level of service will decrease in the future. Accident rates along a number of segments are higher than average for this class of road. The project, which lies in south-central Wisconsin, would begin on the north side of Janesville at Interstate 90 (I-90) and extend north to a point approximately nine miles north of Watertown at STH 60-East. Within the project limits, STH 26 passes through Milton, Jefferson, Johnson Creek, and Watertown and bypasses Fort Atkinson. In rural areas, STH 26 passes through Harmony, Milton, Cushioning, Jefferson, Aztalan, Farmington, Emmet, and Clyman. A No Build Alternative and eight detailed study improvement alternatives are considered in this final EIS; a preferred alternative is identified. Each of the action alternatives would upgrade the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane divided rural highway. The general concept would involve utilizing the existing highway corridor to the extent practical, with bypasses of communities where necessary to maintain a constant highway speed and to avoid excessive relations and impacts to historic sites. Freeway access control standards would be implemented along the bypass portions of the route. Expressway standards, permitting at-grade intersections and private entrances at controlled spacing, would be applied along rural segments located along the existing alignment. Construction would commence no sooner than 2008, though rights-of-way acquisition would begin earlier. Sections of STH 26 would likely be staged for improvement over a period of time as funds become available. Depending on the series of alternatives selected, estimated cost of the project ranges from $148 million to $188 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility consistent with state planning efforts and the intended high function as a primary arterial, provide additional capacity and an adequate level of service for current and projected traffic volumes, reduce congestion and travel time along STH 26, and improve the safety of the highway by reducing traffic conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 1,321 to 1,658 acres, including 43 to 85 acres of wetlands, 11 to 30 acres of upland forest, 1,096 to 1,521 acres of farmland, as well as 35 to 84 residential units and nine to 14 commercial units. The project would traverse up to four streams. As many as three historic and 19 archaeological sites could be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 55 to 97 receptors, but even the highest figure would represent a significantly improvement over the No Action Alternative. Construction activities could encounter three hazardous waste 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 00-0434D, Volume 24, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050275, 387 pages and maps, June 29, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-00-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin 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/36378136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JANESVILLE+TO+WATERTOWN%2C+STH+26%2C+ROCK%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=JANESVILLE+TO+WATERTOWN%2C+STH+26%2C+ROCK%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JANESVILLE TO WATERTOWN, STH 26, ROCK, JEFFERSON, AND DODGE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - JANESVILLE TO WATERTOWN, STH 26, ROCK, JEFFERSON, AND DODGE COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36374488; 050652F-050275_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of 48 miles of State Trunk Highway (STH) 26 from the Interstate 90 (I-90) on the north side of Janesville to STH 60 East north of Watertown in Rock, Jefferson, and Dodge counties, Wisconsin is proposed. A primary arterial, STH 26 accommodates the commodity transport of goods and services as a federal and/or state truck route and provides communities along the corridor with access to local and regional services. Traffic volumes along the study corridor are high and capacity and level of service will decrease in the future. Accident rates along a number of segments are higher than average for this class of road. The project, which lies in south-central Wisconsin, would begin on the north side of Janesville at Interstate 90 (I-90) and extend north to a point approximately nine miles north of Watertown at STH 60-East. Within the project limits, STH 26 passes through Milton, Jefferson, Johnson Creek, and Watertown and bypasses Fort Atkinson. In rural areas, STH 26 passes through Harmony, Milton, Cushioning, Jefferson, Aztalan, Farmington, Emmet, and Clyman. A No Build Alternative and eight detailed study improvement alternatives are considered in this final EIS; a preferred alternative is identified. Each of the action alternatives would upgrade the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane divided rural highway. The general concept would involve utilizing the existing highway corridor to the extent practical, with bypasses of communities where necessary to maintain a constant highway speed and to avoid excessive relations and impacts to historic sites. Freeway access control standards would be implemented along the bypass portions of the route. Expressway standards, permitting at-grade intersections and private entrances at controlled spacing, would be applied along rural segments located along the existing alignment. Construction would commence no sooner than 2008, though rights-of-way acquisition would begin earlier. Sections of STH 26 would likely be staged for improvement over a period of time as funds become available. Depending on the series of alternatives selected, estimated cost of the project ranges from $148 million to $188 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility consistent with state planning efforts and the intended high function as a primary arterial, provide additional capacity and an adequate level of service for current and projected traffic volumes, reduce congestion and travel time along STH 26, and improve the safety of the highway by reducing traffic conflicts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 1,321 to 1,658 acres, including 43 to 85 acres of wetlands, 11 to 30 acres of upland forest, 1,096 to 1,521 acres of farmland, as well as 35 to 84 residential units and nine to 14 commercial units. The project would traverse up to four streams. As many as three historic and 19 archaeological sites could be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 55 to 97 receptors, but even the highest figure would represent a significantly improvement over the No Action Alternative. Construction activities could encounter three hazardous waste 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 00-0434D, Volume 24, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050275, 387 pages and maps, June 29, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-00-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin 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/36374488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JANESVILLE+TO+WATERTOWN%2C+STH+26%2C+ROCK%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=JANESVILLE+TO+WATERTOWN%2C+STH+26%2C+ROCK%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+AND+DODGE+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36446566; 11585 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36446566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36384128; 050650D-050259_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36384128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36382991; 050650D-050259_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36382991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&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 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36382906; 050650D-050259_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36382906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36378250; 050650D-050259_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36378250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36377929; 050650D-050259_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36377929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36375262; 050650D-050259_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36375262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36374570; 050650D-050259_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36374570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&rft.title=DESIGN+MODIFICATIONS+AND+RECREATIONAL+ENHANCEMENTS+TO+THE+WYOMING+VALLEY+LEVEE+RAISING+PROJECT+AT+THE+WILKES-BARRE%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+RIVER+COMMONS%2C+LUZERNE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+SUPPLEMENTAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1996%29.&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36374341; 050650D-050259_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36374341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36374327; 050650D-050259_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36374327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36374264; 050650D-050259_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36374264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36374011; 050650D-050259_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36374011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36373178; 050650D-050259_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36373178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36373107; 050650D-050259_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36373107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36372519; 050650D-050259_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36372519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36372486; 050650D-050259_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36372486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. [Part 9 of 17] T2 - SOUTHTOWNS CONNECTOR/BUFFALO OUTER HARVOR PROJECT, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK. AN - 36372405; 050650D-050259_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southtowns Connector/Buffalo Outer Harbor Project in Buffalo area of Erie County, New York is proposed The project would include improvement of a section of New York State Route (NYS) 5 from the Buffalo Skyway Bridge to NYS 179, construction of a new arterial road from Interstate 90 (I-90) to Tifft Street, reconstruction of Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5, and implementation of various multi-modal access improvements along the affected roads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Improvement Alternative would involve simplification of the existing roadway system. The Boulevard Alternative would involve converting NYS 5 from an expressway to a six-lane boulevard. The Hybrid Alternative would implement a combination of the other two new build alternatives. All build alternatives would incorporate improvements along Ohio Street from Michigan Avenue to NYS 5 and construction of a new four-lane, or two-lane expandable to four-lane, arterial road connecting I-190 to Tifft Street, with signalized intersections at Seneca Street, Elk Street, and South Park Avenue. All action alternatives would implement an interpretative program along Ohio Street for the Industrial Heritage Trail. Estimated costs of the Improvement, Boulevard, and Hybrid alternatives are $134.4 million, $144.1 million, and $152 million, respectively, including respective rights-of-way acquisition costs of $9.4 milion, $8.4 million, and $7.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve existing access and or provide new road access to specific redevelopment sites within the corridor, such as the NFTA OUter Harbor Lands, Union Ship Canal Redevelopment Area, the former LTV/Republic Steel site, and the former Bethlehem Steel site. The NYS 5/Fuhrmann Boulevard/Ohio Street complex along the Buffalo Outer Harbor would be reconfigured into a system more compatible with the proposed land uses included in local plans. Overall, the system would provide and preserve adequate service for commuter/commercial traffic between the Southtowns and downtown Buffalo and improve local access to and along the waterfront for other modes, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Any action alternative would increase business sales by $148 million, result in $70 million in household income, and $4.4 million in local tax receipts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 74 to 77 parcels encompassing a total of 22.7 to 26.27 acres of land, three residential and three commercial structures, one mixed residential/commercial building, and one business. The project would displace one building (630 Ohio Street) that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Non-conforming geometrics could occur along two or three segments. The expressway would continue to include deficient segments between Ohio Street to Tifft Street, I-90 to Ridge Road and, possibly, I-90 to Ogden Street and I-90 to Hamburg Street, as well as at two to six intersections. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 134 to 149 sensitive receptor sites during the morning and 133 to 171 receptor sites during the evening. Hazardous waste and/or contaminated materials would be encountered by construction workers at the LTV/Republic Steel site, near the Mobil Exxon facility, and within portions of the Buffalo Outer Harbor and the Bethlehem Street sites. Asbestos would be encountered at 17 bridges and four buildings. 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: 050259, 511 pages and maps, June 22, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NY-EIS-04-06-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - New York 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/36372405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=SOUTHTOWNS+CONNECTOR%2FBUFFALO+OUTER+HARVOR+PROJECT%2C+ERIE+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Albany, New York; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 22, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36370768; 050568D-050253_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The measures proposed in a 1995 EIS regarding the use of uncontaminated dredged materials from the approach channels of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels Federal navigation project to recreate and restore ecological habitat at Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay and Talbot County, Maryland, are re-evaluated. Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to protect, restore and create aquatic and ecologically-related habitats in connection with dredging (construction and/or maintenance) of an authorized Federal navigation project. The Maryland Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Maryland Port Administration, has requested the restoration of Poplar Island to its approximate size 150 years ago. The group of islands known as Poplar Island is located in the upper middle Chesapeake Bay approximately 34 nautical miles southeast of the Port of Baltimore, on the main stem of the Bay near the confluence of the Chesapeake and Eastern Bays, and is subject to severe erosional forces. From a size probably exceeding 1,100 acres in the 1800s, the island has eroded and split into four separate islands, together totaling only five acres. The approach channels to the Port of Baltimore must be dredged and maintained to navigable depths to maintain port commerce. Approximately 100 million cubic yards of material are expected to be dredged from the project over the next 20 years. This volume exceeds the capacity of the existing dredged material placement sites. In addition to the Poplar Island restoration project and a No Action Alternative, four general dredge placement location alternatives are considered in the draft EIS of November 1995. These alternatives would include open water placement, at four alternative sites; shallow water placement at five alternative sites; upland placement at four alternative sites; and Island restoration/creation at 10 alternative sites other than Poplar Island. This supplemental EIS re-evaluates the measures proposed above, addressing three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives for ecosystem restoration at Poplar Island. The recommended alternative would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres, consisting of 60 percent wetland and 40 percent upland habitat; raising by five feet of the existing upland cells 2 and 6 at the restoration project site; amendment of the existing project authorization and project cooperation agreement to include the placement of dredged material from the southern approach channels to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and other small federal navigation project; incorporation of design modifications required for completion of the existing project; and development of recreational and educational enhancements for the restoration project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Poplar Island project would allow the beneficial use of dredged material for several reasons: islands are preferentially selected by many migratory birds, as well as fish and other wildlife species, as nesting/production areas; the prevention of further island erosion should decrease Chesapeake Bay sediment loadings and significantly improve water clarity in the immediate vicinity of the Poplar Island complex; and created wetland and shallow water areas should provide excellent habitat for juvenile and forage fish species. Epibenthic vertebrates, and benthic in fauna would increase from a net gain of wetland area. Additional dredged spoil placement capacity would be made available to handle immediate and long-term maintenance dredging needs and would avoid adverse impacts associated with other less beneficial placement sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 600 acres of open water and bottom habitat would be lost under the dredged spoil placement footprint, impacting finfish, clams, blue crab, aquatic vegetation, and avian communities, and 27.2 acres of cover items (snag fields) would be buried. Moreover, the permanent loss of 100 acres of shallow water habitat within the channel alignment could directly affect utilization by fish species for which the area serves as essential fish habitat, recreational fisheries, and blue crab, as well as a submerged aquatic habitat and clam species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050253, 347 pages and maps, CD-ROM, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Reclamation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Control KW - Shellfish KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Poplar Island KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+REPORT+FOR+POPLAR+ISLAND+ENVIRONMENTAL+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHESAPEAKE+BAY%2C+TALBOT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+REPORT+FOR+POPLAR+ISLAND+ENVIRONMENTAL+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHESAPEAKE+BAY%2C+TALBOT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36370716; 050568D-050253_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The measures proposed in a 1995 EIS regarding the use of uncontaminated dredged materials from the approach channels of the Baltimore Harbor and Channels Federal navigation project to recreate and restore ecological habitat at Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay and Talbot County, Maryland, are re-evaluated. Section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to protect, restore and create aquatic and ecologically-related habitats in connection with dredging (construction and/or maintenance) of an authorized Federal navigation project. The Maryland Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Maryland Port Administration, has requested the restoration of Poplar Island to its approximate size 150 years ago. The group of islands known as Poplar Island is located in the upper middle Chesapeake Bay approximately 34 nautical miles southeast of the Port of Baltimore, on the main stem of the Bay near the confluence of the Chesapeake and Eastern Bays, and is subject to severe erosional forces. From a size probably exceeding 1,100 acres in the 1800s, the island has eroded and split into four separate islands, together totaling only five acres. The approach channels to the Port of Baltimore must be dredged and maintained to navigable depths to maintain port commerce. Approximately 100 million cubic yards of material are expected to be dredged from the project over the next 20 years. This volume exceeds the capacity of the existing dredged material placement sites. In addition to the Poplar Island restoration project and a No Action Alternative, four general dredge placement location alternatives are considered in the draft EIS of November 1995. These alternatives would include open water placement, at four alternative sites; shallow water placement at five alternative sites; upland placement at four alternative sites; and Island restoration/creation at 10 alternative sites other than Poplar Island. This supplemental EIS re-evaluates the measures proposed above, addressing three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives for ecosystem restoration at Poplar Island. The recommended alternative would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres, consisting of 60 percent wetland and 40 percent upland habitat; raising by five feet of the existing upland cells 2 and 6 at the restoration project site; amendment of the existing project authorization and project cooperation agreement to include the placement of dredged material from the southern approach channels to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and other small federal navigation project; incorporation of design modifications required for completion of the existing project; and development of recreational and educational enhancements for the restoration project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Poplar Island project would allow the beneficial use of dredged material for several reasons: islands are preferentially selected by many migratory birds, as well as fish and other wildlife species, as nesting/production areas; the prevention of further island erosion should decrease Chesapeake Bay sediment loadings and significantly improve water clarity in the immediate vicinity of the Poplar Island complex; and created wetland and shallow water areas should provide excellent habitat for juvenile and forage fish species. Epibenthic vertebrates, and benthic in fauna would increase from a net gain of wetland area. Additional dredged spoil placement capacity would be made available to handle immediate and long-term maintenance dredging needs and would avoid adverse impacts associated with other less beneficial placement sites. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 600 acres of open water and bottom habitat would be lost under the dredged spoil placement footprint, impacting finfish, clams, blue crab, aquatic vegetation, and avian communities, and 27.2 acres of cover items (snag fields) would be buried. Moreover, the permanent loss of 100 acres of shallow water habitat within the channel alignment could directly affect utilization by fish species for which the area serves as essential fish habitat, recreational fisheries, and blue crab, as well as a submerged aquatic habitat and clam species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050253, 347 pages and maps, CD-ROM, June 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Reclamation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Control KW - Shellfish KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Poplar Island KW - Maryland KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+REPORT+FOR+POPLAR+ISLAND+ENVIRONMENTAL+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHESAPEAKE+BAY%2C+TALBOT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+REPORT+FOR+POPLAR+ISLAND+ENVIRONMENTAL+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+CHESAPEAKE+BAY%2C+TALBOT+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRINITY RIVER, CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36432119; 11574 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of flood control, ecosystem restoration, and urban development measures within the Central City area of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. The Central City study area lies at the confluence of the Clear Fork and West Fork of the Trinity River in the heart of Fort Worth. The area is bounded generally by the Fort Worth Stockyards to the north, University Drive to the west, Interstate 30 to the south, and Sylvania Avenue to the east. An extensive floodway, incorporating channelization and levee walls, and interior drainage system has provided protection to the area. This system has proven to be inadequate, and discharges under future high water conditions could cause annualized damages of approximately $334,300. The system of sumps and 30 drainage structures that provides interior drainage system. Total flood damage from the 50-yera event for sumps 25 and 14/15 are estimated to be $5.1 million and $13.9 million for the 100-year event. n addition, flood control and urban development have severely damaged the natural environment associated with the river, including riparian and upland forest, wetlands, and grassland. The area is also rich in cultural resources, now at risk, and affected by soil and groundwater contamination. Recreational resources are somewhat below the required capacity and populated largely by low-income Hispanics suffering from high unemployment rates. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively recommended plan, known as the Community-Based Alternative, would provide standard flood protection plus four feed of free board through construction of a bypass channel extending 8,400 feet from just down stream of Fifth Street on the Clear Fork to just upstream of Northside Drive on the West Work. The channel would be 300 to 400 feet wide between the top of the levees. The system would include three isolation gates, elevation and other improvements at sump facilities, a dam on the West Fork, 1,100 downstream of Samuels Avenue, designed to create a normal water surface elevation of 525 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum and an interior water feature, extending 900 feet, at the confluence of the Clear and West fork channels. Ecosystem restoration, involving primarily areas proposed for valley storage mitigation, would include reconnection of two historic river meanders and addition of 118 acres of water surface behind the Samuels Avenue Dam. Recreational facilities would include 10 miles of waterfront trails, two new pedestrian bridges, and 3.5 miles of continuous boating loop. Three new vehicular bridges would be required to maintain existing traffic flow to and through the area. First cost of the recommended project alternative is estimated at $435 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would restore the design level of flood protection throughout the system and improve flood protection associated with interior drainage facilities ancillary to the floodway system. Regarding the area ecosystem, the project would restore, improve, and diversify aquatic habitat, increase emergent wetland habitat for migratory birds, establish continuity across ecosystems, and enhance existing pockets of high-quality bottomland hardwoods adjacent to the river. The recreational system would be improved and integrated, and the area would be more amenable to appropriate urban development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended alternative would engender a potential for water stagnation and algal problems and algal problems on a greater frequency during summer due to increased evaporation as stream surface area is enlarged and water is impounded. Construction activities would result in temporary degradation of water quality due to turbidity and the release of toxins from contaminated soils. Significant historic and archaeological resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed during construction and operation of the system. 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 River and Harbor Act of 19605 (P.L. 89-298). JF - EPA number: 050248, 177 pages and maps, June 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Trails KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Trinity River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Complain KW - River and Harbor Act of 19605, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Sonya&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRINITY RIVER, CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - UPPER TRINITY RIVER, CENTRAL CITY, FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36373285; 050692D-050248_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of flood control, ecosystem restoration, and urban development measures within the Central City area of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas is proposed. The Central City study area lies at the confluence of the Clear Fork and West Fork of the Trinity River in the heart of Fort Worth. The area is bounded generally by the Fort Worth Stockyards to the north, University Drive to the west, Interstate 30 to the south, and Sylvania Avenue to the east. An extensive floodway, incorporating channelization and levee walls, and interior drainage system has provided protection to the area. This system has proven to be inadequate, and discharges under future high water conditions could cause annualized damages of approximately $334,300. The system of sumps and 30 drainage structures that provides interior drainage system. Total flood damage from the 50-yera event for sumps 25 and 14/15 are estimated to be $5.1 million and $13.9 million for the 100-year event. n addition, flood control and urban development have severely damaged the natural environment associated with the river, including riparian and upland forest, wetlands, and grassland. The area is also rich in cultural resources, now at risk, and affected by soil and groundwater contamination. Recreational resources are somewhat below the required capacity and populated largely by low-income Hispanics suffering from high unemployment rates. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively recommended plan, known as the Community-Based Alternative, would provide standard flood protection plus four feed of free board through construction of a bypass channel extending 8,400 feet from just down stream of Fifth Street on the Clear Fork to just upstream of Northside Drive on the West Work. The channel would be 300 to 400 feet wide between the top of the levees. The system would include three isolation gates, elevation and other improvements at sump facilities, a dam on the West Fork, 1,100 downstream of Samuels Avenue, designed to create a normal water surface elevation of 525 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum and an interior water feature, extending 900 feet, at the confluence of the Clear and West fork channels. Ecosystem restoration, involving primarily areas proposed for valley storage mitigation, would include reconnection of two historic river meanders and addition of 118 acres of water surface behind the Samuels Avenue Dam. Recreational facilities would include 10 miles of waterfront trails, two new pedestrian bridges, and 3.5 miles of continuous boating loop. Three new vehicular bridges would be required to maintain existing traffic flow to and through the area. First cost of the recommended project alternative is estimated at $435 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would restore the design level of flood protection throughout the system and improve flood protection associated with interior drainage facilities ancillary to the floodway system. Regarding the area ecosystem, the project would restore, improve, and diversify aquatic habitat, increase emergent wetland habitat for migratory birds, establish continuity across ecosystems, and enhance existing pockets of high-quality bottomland hardwoods adjacent to the river. The recreational system would be improved and integrated, and the area would be more amenable to appropriate urban development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The recommended alternative would engender a potential for water stagnation and algal problems and algal problems on a greater frequency during summer due to increased evaporation as stream surface area is enlarged and water is impounded. Construction activities would result in temporary degradation of water quality due to turbidity and the release of toxins from contaminated soils. Significant historic and archaeological resources could be inadvertently damaged or destroyed during construction and operation of the system. 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 River and Harbor Act of 19605 (P.L. 89-298). JF - EPA number: 050248, 177 pages and maps, June 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Trails KW - Urban Development KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Trinity River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Complain KW - River and Harbor Act of 19605, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRINITY+RIVER%2C+CENTRAL+CITY%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=UPPER+TRINITY+RIVER%2C+CENTRAL+CITY%2C+FORT+WORTH%2C+TARRANT+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO. AN - 36437684; 11568 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal on the northeast shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay, west of Ingleside in Nueces and San Patricio counties, Texas. In addition, the applicants (Ingleside Energy Center, LLC and San Patricio Pipeline, LLC) would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities extending from the LNG terminal to natural gas pipeline interconnects north of Sinton in San Patricio County. Te terminal component of the project would involve dredging of a new marine terminal basin connected to the La Quinta Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area an one protected berth to unload up to 140 LNG ships each year; two double-containment LNG storage tanks with a nominal working volume of 1.o billion barrels; and LNG vaporization and processing equipment. To transport the vaporized LNG, the applicants would provide for 26.4 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline; eight metering stations/delivery points and nine pipeline interconnections with existing natural gas pipeline systems; and a pig launcher and tie-in valves at the LNG terminal, a mainline valve near the middle of the pipeline, and a pig receiver facility and a metering regulating station at the northern pipeline terminus. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would introduce a competitive supply of natural gas to Ingleside and San Patricio affiliates (Occidental Chemical Company and Ingleside Cogeneration Partners LP) and other large energy-consuming industries in the Corpus Christi are and deliver natural gas too existing interstate and intrastate pipelines north of Sinton, Texas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities at the terminal site would affect 489.7 acres of land and water. Terminal facilities would permanently displace 74 acres of land and 40 acres offshore within the La Quinta Channel for maneuvering area and a marine basin. Pipeline construction would disturb 375.7 acres, including the construction rights-of-way for the pipeline, additional temporary workspace, a contractor and pipe yard, metering stations/interconnects, a pig launcher and receiver, and access roads. Operation of the new terminal and pipeline facility would require 274.7 acres. Displaced acreage would include 0.7 acres of prime farmland soils currently in industrial use for the terminal and 234.8 acres of such soils for pipeline construction, approximately 5.5 acres of wetland, tidal flats, and sea grass beds as well as shrubland and grassland habitat. Though the project would lie within an area providing habitat for 22 federally protected species, none would be significantly affected by the terminal or pipeline. Essential fish habitat for three shellfish species and two finfish species could be affected. The two storage tanks used by the LNG terminal and aboveground pipeline facilities would mar visual aesthetic in the area. Ship traffic within the Corpus Christi Channel would increase somewhat, increasing the possibility of collisions within the bay. Cultural resource surveys for historic and archaeological sites have not been completed, but none have been found in the project impact area to this date. In the unlikely event of a severe accident or terrorist attach, significant levels of volatile gas could be released into the atmosphere in the vicinity of the terminal and/or pipeline corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0309D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050242, 478 pages, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-177F KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Farm Management KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Corpus Christi Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.title=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36436048; 11567 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. The amendment of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing regulations for public lands, exclusive of Alaska, is proposed. The grazing regulations govern all public lands identified as suitable for livestock grazing, encompassing 160 million acres in the western United States. During the nine years since the implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete concerns have been raised regarding the administration of grazing management. The proposed amendment would represent adjustments, rather than a major overhaul, of the fundamental structure of the grazing regulation regime. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), would provide for regulatory revisions falling into three categories: 1) improvement of working relations with grazing permittees and lessees; 2) protection of the health of rangelands, and increase administrative efficiency and effectiveness. Within category (1), the regime changes would address social, economic, and cultural considerations in the decision-making process; implement changes in grazing use; address range improvement ownership; and ensure cooperation with tribal, state, county, and local government-established grazing boards; review biological assessments and evaluations. Within category (2), the regime changes would address applications for temporary nonuse; strengthen the basis for rangeland health determinations; and require that the BLM take appropriate action as soon as practicable, with a time limit extending not beyond the start of the next grazing year. Within category (3), the regime changes would address conservation uses; clarify the definitions of grazing preference, permitted use, and active use and the definition and role of an interested public; incorporate water rights law, down to the level of state law, into management plans; define the concept of satisfactory performance of a permittee or lessee; alter the means of providing for changes in grazing use within the terms and conditions of a permit or lease; allow the assessment of service charges for crossing permits, transfer of grazing preference; applications for nonuse; and supplemental billing notices; address civil and criminal sanctions for prohibited acts; address grazing use pending resolution of appeals; and address biological assessments and evaluations in the grazing decision-making process. In addition to the preferred alternative, a modified proposal, and a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing regulatory regime, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. Revisions to the 1995 reforms would streamline and increase the effectiveness and flexibility of the reforms. The regulations would promote better partnerships with grazing permittees, lessees, and advisory boards. Range vegetation, wetlands, and soils and the associated wildlife habitat would progress toward achievement of management objectives more rapidly, including a minor improvement in the fire regime. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. Some of the regulatory changes proposed would increase operator and BLM administrative costs. Ranchers would continue to face increasing stress related to public land grazing, providing for the inheritance of range access to the next generation; and sell ranches for amenity reasons and subdivision. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO. AN - 36379177; 11568-050242_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal on the northeast shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay, west of Ingleside in Nueces and San Patricio counties, Texas. In addition, the applicants (Ingleside Energy Center, LLC and San Patricio Pipeline, LLC) would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities extending from the LNG terminal to natural gas pipeline interconnects north of Sinton in San Patricio County. Te terminal component of the project would involve dredging of a new marine terminal basin connected to the La Quinta Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area an one protected berth to unload up to 140 LNG ships each year; two double-containment LNG storage tanks with a nominal working volume of 1.o billion barrels; and LNG vaporization and processing equipment. To transport the vaporized LNG, the applicants would provide for 26.4 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline; eight metering stations/delivery points and nine pipeline interconnections with existing natural gas pipeline systems; and a pig launcher and tie-in valves at the LNG terminal, a mainline valve near the middle of the pipeline, and a pig receiver facility and a metering regulating station at the northern pipeline terminus. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would introduce a competitive supply of natural gas to Ingleside and San Patricio affiliates (Occidental Chemical Company and Ingleside Cogeneration Partners LP) and other large energy-consuming industries in the Corpus Christi are and deliver natural gas too existing interstate and intrastate pipelines north of Sinton, Texas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities at the terminal site would affect 489.7 acres of land and water. Terminal facilities would permanently displace 74 acres of land and 40 acres offshore within the La Quinta Channel for maneuvering area and a marine basin. Pipeline construction would disturb 375.7 acres, including the construction rights-of-way for the pipeline, additional temporary workspace, a contractor and pipe yard, metering stations/interconnects, a pig launcher and receiver, and access roads. Operation of the new terminal and pipeline facility would require 274.7 acres. Displaced acreage would include 0.7 acres of prime farmland soils currently in industrial use for the terminal and 234.8 acres of such soils for pipeline construction, approximately 5.5 acres of wetland, tidal flats, and sea grass beds as well as shrubland and grassland habitat. Though the project would lie within an area providing habitat for 22 federally protected species, none would be significantly affected by the terminal or pipeline. Essential fish habitat for three shellfish species and two finfish species could be affected. The two storage tanks used by the LNG terminal and aboveground pipeline facilities would mar visual aesthetic in the area. Ship traffic within the Corpus Christi Channel would increase somewhat, increasing the possibility of collisions within the bay. Cultural resource surveys for historic and archaeological sites have not been completed, but none have been found in the project impact area to this date. In the unlikely event of a severe accident or terrorist attach, significant levels of volatile gas could be released into the atmosphere in the vicinity of the terminal and/or pipeline corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0309D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050242, 478 pages, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-177F KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Farm Management KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Corpus Christi Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.title=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36373678; 050649D-050240_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. The amendment of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing regulations for public lands, exclusive of Alaska, is proposed. The grazing regulations govern all public lands identified as suitable for livestock grazing, encompassing 160 million acres in the western United States. During the nine years since the implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete concerns have been raised regarding the administration of grazing management. The proposed amendment would represent adjustments, rather than a major overhaul, of the fundamental structure of the grazing regulation regime. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), would provide for regulatory revisions falling into three categories: 1) improvement of working relations with grazing permittees and lessees; 2) protection of the health of rangelands, and increase administrative efficiency and effectiveness. Within category (1), the regime changes would address social, economic, and cultural considerations in the decision-making process; implement changes in grazing use; address range improvement ownership; and ensure cooperation with tribal, state, county, and local government-established grazing boards; review biological assessments and evaluations. Within category (2), the regime changes would address applications for temporary nonuse; strengthen the basis for rangeland health determinations; and require that the BLM take appropriate action as soon as practicable, with a time limit extending not beyond the start of the next grazing year. Within category (3), the regime changes would address conservation uses; clarify the definitions of grazing preference, permitted use, and active use and the definition and role of an interested public; incorporate water rights law, down to the level of state law, into management plans; define the concept of satisfactory performance of a permittee or lessee; alter the means of providing for changes in grazing use within the terms and conditions of a permit or lease; allow the assessment of service charges for crossing permits, transfer of grazing preference; applications for nonuse; and supplemental billing notices; address civil and criminal sanctions for prohibited acts; address grazing use pending resolution of appeals; and address biological assessments and evaluations in the grazing decision-making process. In addition to the preferred alternative, a modified proposal, and a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing regulatory regime, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. Revisions to the 1995 reforms would streamline and increase the effectiveness and flexibility of the reforms. The regulations would promote better partnerships with grazing permittees, lessees, and advisory boards. Range vegetation, wetlands, and soils and the associated wildlife habitat would progress toward achievement of management objectives more rapidly, including a minor improvement in the fire regime. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. Some of the regulatory changes proposed would increase operator and BLM administrative costs. Ranchers would continue to face increasing stress related to public land grazing, providing for the inheritance of range access to the next generation; and sell ranches for amenity reasons and subdivision. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=SILVER+LINE+PHASE+III%2C+BOSTON%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SILVER LINE PHASE III, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 36373094; 050649D-050240_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the Silver Line) in Boston, Massachusetts is proposed. Phase II of the Silver Line Project would complete this BRT system by providing the essential connection between Phase I, now in operation along Washington Street, and Phase II, now in operation along the South Boston Waterfront. This supplemental draft EIS considers several alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, as well as four build alignment alternatives. The four build alternatives, all of which are located in the city of Boston, would extend approximately one mile and connect the two existing Silver Line services into a new tunnel referred to as the Core Tunnel Segment. The segment, includes new connections at the existing Boylston Street (Green Line) and Chinatown (Red Line) stations. Depending on the build alternative considered, capital investment cost of Phase III ranges from $768.2 million to $811.7 million. Annual operating costs estimates range from $5.1 million to $5.2 million. The amendment of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing regulations for public lands, exclusive of Alaska, is proposed. The grazing regulations govern all public lands identified as suitable for livestock grazing, encompassing 160 million acres in the western United States. During the nine years since the implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete concerns have been raised regarding the administration of grazing management. The proposed amendment would represent adjustments, rather than a major overhaul, of the fundamental structure of the grazing regulation regime. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), would provide for regulatory revisions falling into three categories: 1) improvement of working relations with grazing permittees and lessees; 2) protection of the health of rangelands, and increase administrative efficiency and effectiveness. Within category (1), the regime changes would address social, economic, and cultural considerations in the decision-making process; implement changes in grazing use; address range improvement ownership; and ensure cooperation with tribal, state, county, and local government-established grazing boards; review biological assessments and evaluations. Within category (2), the regime changes would address applications for temporary nonuse; strengthen the basis for rangeland health determinations; and require that the BLM take appropriate action as soon as practicable, with a time limit extending not beyond the start of the next grazing year. Within category (3), the regime changes would address conservation uses; clarify the definitions of grazing preference, permitted use, and active use and the definition and role of an interested public; incorporate water rights law, down to the level of state law, into management plans; define the concept of satisfactory performance of a permittee or lessee; alter the means of providing for changes in grazing use within the terms and conditions of a permit or lease; allow the assessment of service charges for crossing permits, transfer of grazing preference; applications for nonuse; and supplemental billing notices; address civil and criminal sanctions for prohibited acts; address grazing use pending resolution of appeals; and address biological assessments and evaluations in the grazing decision-making process. In addition to the preferred alternative, a modified proposal, and a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the existing regulatory regime, are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Upon completion, Phase III would significantly reduce existing and anticipated congestion in the Phase III corridor, realize significant travel time savings for riders, generate substantial transportation, environmental, and economic development benefits locally, and enhance the value of existing transit investments by improving connections or providing alternatives to the Green and Orange lines of the rapid transit system. Revisions to the 1995 reforms would streamline and increase the effectiveness and flexibility of the reforms. The regulations would promote better partnerships with grazing permittees, lessees, and advisory boards. Range vegetation, wetlands, and soils and the associated wildlife habitat would progress toward achievement of management objectives more rapidly, including a minor improvement in the fire regime. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Give that the major portion of the alignment of any of the build alternatives would run underground in a tunnel, there would be relatively few long-term impacts. The Core Tunnel Segment would affect parkland and archaeological and historic resources in the vicinity of the Boston Common. The project would involve various easements and use restrictions within buildings and at other sites. Some on- and off-street parking would be displaced. Some of the regulatory changes proposed would increase operator and BLM administrative costs. Ranchers would continue to face increasing stress related to public land grazing, providing for the inheritance of range access to the next generation; and sell ranches for amenity reasons and subdivision. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050240, 548 pages and maps, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FES 04-39 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Fires KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Livestock KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Massachusetts KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Oregon KW - Utah KW - Washington KW - Wyoming KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/COS+Conference+Papers+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Glomski%2C+Lee+Ann+M%3BNetherland%2C+Michael+D&rft.aulast=Glomski&rft.aufirst=Lee+Ann&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Aquashade+Dye+for+Growth+Inhibition+of+Submersed+Aquatic+Vegetation&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Aquashade+Dye+for+Growth+Inhibition+of+Submersed+Aquatic+Vegetation&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO. AN - 36372228; 11568-050242_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal on the northeast shoreline of Corpus Christi Bay, west of Ingleside in Nueces and San Patricio counties, Texas. In addition, the applicants (Ingleside Energy Center, LLC and San Patricio Pipeline, LLC) would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities extending from the LNG terminal to natural gas pipeline interconnects north of Sinton in San Patricio County. Te terminal component of the project would involve dredging of a new marine terminal basin connected to the La Quinta Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area an one protected berth to unload up to 140 LNG ships each year; two double-containment LNG storage tanks with a nominal working volume of 1.o billion barrels; and LNG vaporization and processing equipment. To transport the vaporized LNG, the applicants would provide for 26.4 miles of 26-inch-diameter pipeline; eight metering stations/delivery points and nine pipeline interconnections with existing natural gas pipeline systems; and a pig launcher and tie-in valves at the LNG terminal, a mainline valve near the middle of the pipeline, and a pig receiver facility and a metering regulating station at the northern pipeline terminus. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would introduce a competitive supply of natural gas to Ingleside and San Patricio affiliates (Occidental Chemical Company and Ingleside Cogeneration Partners LP) and other large energy-consuming industries in the Corpus Christi are and deliver natural gas too existing interstate and intrastate pipelines north of Sinton, Texas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities at the terminal site would affect 489.7 acres of land and water. Terminal facilities would permanently displace 74 acres of land and 40 acres offshore within the La Quinta Channel for maneuvering area and a marine basin. Pipeline construction would disturb 375.7 acres, including the construction rights-of-way for the pipeline, additional temporary workspace, a contractor and pipe yard, metering stations/interconnects, a pig launcher and receiver, and access roads. Operation of the new terminal and pipeline facility would require 274.7 acres. Displaced acreage would include 0.7 acres of prime farmland soils currently in industrial use for the terminal and 234.8 acres of such soils for pipeline construction, approximately 5.5 acres of wetland, tidal flats, and sea grass beds as well as shrubland and grassland habitat. Though the project would lie within an area providing habitat for 22 federally protected species, none would be significantly affected by the terminal or pipeline. Essential fish habitat for three shellfish species and two finfish species could be affected. The two storage tanks used by the LNG terminal and aboveground pipeline facilities would mar visual aesthetic in the area. Ship traffic within the Corpus Christi Channel would increase somewhat, increasing the possibility of collisions within the bay. Cultural resource surveys for historic and archaeological sites have not been completed, but none have been found in the project impact area to this date. In the unlikely event of a severe accident or terrorist attach, significant levels of volatile gas could be released into the atmosphere in the vicinity of the terminal and/or pipeline corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0309D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050242, 478 pages, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-177F KW - Bays KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Farm Management KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Safety KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Corpus Christi Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.title=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MAY PASS ENERGY HUB DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, GULF OF MEXICO, 16 MILES SOUTH OF VENICE, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MAY PASS ENERGY HUB DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, GULF OF MEXICO, 16 MILES SOUTH OF VENICE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371651; 050690D-050239_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port and associated anchorages in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana is proposed The port facility proposed by the applicant, FreeportMoRan Energy LLC, would lie approximately 16 miles southeast of the coast of Louisiana in Outer Continental Shelf Block MP 299, in water depth of 210 feet. A gas pipeline junction platform, also part of the port, would be located 40 miles off the Mississippi coast in MP 1164. The affected shoreline would include Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The port, capable of unloading LNG carriers of up to 160,000 cubic meters capacity, would be designed to accommodate a nominal capacity of 7.0 million metric tons of LNG (the equivalent of 350 billion cubic feet) per year. This annual LNG throughput would equate to a nominal vaporization capacity of 1.0 billion cubic feet per day (bfcd). The vaporization facilities would provide for a peak capacity of 1.6 bfcd to allow additional supply during peak periods of demand. Storage facilities for LNG would include six tanks having a combined capacity of 145,000 cubic meters. In addition, three salt caverns would be available for temporary storage of 27.9 billion standard cubic feet. The facility would be supported by six natural gas and gas liquid pipelines, extending a total of 192 miles. Five natural gas takeaway pipeline would connect the port with existing gas distribution pipelines. Four natural gas pipelines would terminate offshore, and one pipeline would terminate onshore near Coden, Alabama. The natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline would connect the port to a fractionating facility near Venice, Louisiana, where the gas liquids would be separated for sale. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses alternatives for port siting, pipeline routes, LNG revaporization technology, and fabrication yard sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help meet the existing and estimated regional and national demand for natural gas supplies by increasing access to sources worldwide. Construction and operation, respectively would increase short-term and long-term employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Routine offshore operations would degrade ambient water and air quality and increase noise levels in the area, and construction activities, particularly the laying of pipeline, would be particularly detrimental to water quality over the short-term. Federally protected sea turtles, main and ambient noise levels mammals, fish, and migratory birds would be negatively affected. Localized populations of fish species would be impacted, but these impacts would not have larger population effects. Construction of the Alabama pipeline route alternatives would result in long-term loss of vegetation, including wildlife habitat, as well as disproportionately affecting minority and low-income residents. Significant archaeological resources could be lost during the construction phase, though an archaeological survey has made avoidance of any crucial resources likely. Creation of a 5-mile safety zone in the vicinity of the port terminal would result in limited displacement of recreational and commercial fishing LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 050239, 755 pages, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Continental Shelves KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Pipelines KW - Safety KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MAY+PASS+ENERGY+HUB+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+16+MILES+SOUTH+OF+VENICE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MAY+PASS+ENERGY+HUB+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+16+MILES+SOUTH+OF+VENICE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MAY PASS ENERGY HUB DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION, GULF OF MEXICO, 16 MILES SOUTH OF VENICE, LOUISIANA. AN - 16342423; 11566 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port and associated anchorages in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana is proposed The port facility proposed by the applicant, FreeportMoRan Energy LLC, would lie approximately 16 miles southeast of the coast of Louisiana in Outer Continental Shelf Block MP 299, in water depth of 210 feet. A gas pipeline junction platform, also part of the port, would be located 40 miles off the Mississippi coast in MP 1164. The affected shoreline would include Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The port, capable of unloading LNG carriers of up to 160,000 cubic meters capacity, would be designed to accommodate a nominal capacity of 7.0 million metric tons of LNG (the equivalent of 350 billion cubic feet) per year. This annual LNG throughput would equate to a nominal vaporization capacity of 1.0 billion cubic feet per day (bfcd). The vaporization facilities would provide for a peak capacity of 1.6 bfcd to allow additional supply during peak periods of demand. Storage facilities for LNG would include six tanks having a combined capacity of 145,000 cubic meters. In addition, three salt caverns would be available for temporary storage of 27.9 billion standard cubic feet. The facility would be supported by six natural gas and gas liquid pipelines, extending a total of 192 miles. Five natural gas takeaway pipeline would connect the port with existing gas distribution pipelines. Four natural gas pipelines would terminate offshore, and one pipeline would terminate onshore near Coden, Alabama. The natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline would connect the port to a fractionating facility near Venice, Louisiana, where the gas liquids would be separated for sale. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS addresses alternatives for port siting, pipeline routes, LNG revaporization technology, and fabrication yard sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port would help meet the existing and estimated regional and national demand for natural gas supplies by increasing access to sources worldwide. Construction and operation, respectively would increase short-term and long-term employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Routine offshore operations would degrade ambient water and air quality and increase noise levels in the area, and construction activities, particularly the laying of pipeline, would be particularly detrimental to water quality over the short-term. Federally protected sea turtles, main and ambient noise levels mammals, fish, and migratory birds would be negatively affected. Localized populations of fish species would be impacted, but these impacts would not have larger population effects. Construction of the Alabama pipeline route alternatives would result in long-term loss of vegetation, including wildlife habitat, as well as disproportionately affecting minority and low-income residents. Significant archaeological resources could be lost during the construction phase, though an archaeological survey has made avoidance of any crucial resources likely. Creation of a 5-mile safety zone in the vicinity of the port terminal would result in limited displacement of recreational and commercial fishing LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (22 U.S.C 1501-1524), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 050239, 755 pages, June 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Continental Shelves KW - Dredging KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Pipelines KW - Safety KW - Ships KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, License Application KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MAY+PASS+ENERGY+HUB+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+16+MILES+SOUTH+OF+VENICE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=MAY+PASS+ENERGY+HUB+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+16+MILES+SOUTH+OF+VENICE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36437946; 11561 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36437946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36379955; 050648D-050234_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36379955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36379869; 050648D-050234_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36379869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36374125; 050648D-050234_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36374125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36374043; 050648D-050234_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36374043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36373509; 050648D-050234_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36373509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36373173; 050648D-050234_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36373173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36373008; 050648D-050234_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36373008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372775; 050648D-050234_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36372775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372658; 050648D-050234_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36372658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Judy&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372446; 050648D-050234_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36372446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372045; 050648D-050234_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36372045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372024; 050648D-050234_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36372024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371987; 050648D-050234_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36371987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371846; 050648D-050234_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36371846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371836; 050648D-050234_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36371836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371779; 050648D-050234_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36371779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371167; 050648D-050234_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36371167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2005-07-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=45th+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Aquatic+Plant+Management+Society&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36370711; 050648D-050234_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36370711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36370673; 050648D-050234_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36370673?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36370535; 050648D-050234_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36370535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36370273; 050648D-050234_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36370273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36369807; 050648D-050234_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36369807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 15, US 171 TO I-20, BOSSIER, CADDO, AND DESOTO PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36369581; 050648D-050234_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 35-mile section of divided, four-lane, limited-access highway on new location between US 171 near the town of Stonewall in DeSoto Parish and Interstate 20 (I-20) near the town of Haughton in Bossier Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility would pass through Caddo Parish as well. A bridge would span the Red River south of Shreveport. The proposed highway would constitute a portion of the planned improvements to the congressionally designated High Priority Corridor 19, which would link Indianapolis, Indiana to the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Six alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Estimated costs for rights-of-way acquisition and construction under the preferred alternative (Line 6) are estimated at $40.7 million and $505.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a Section 15 of and Independent Utility facility; improve international and interstate movement of freight and people; facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth domestically and internationally; improve intermodal connectivity of existing truck, rail, and port transportation modes, including the Port of Shreveport-Bossier; and complete transportation improvements identified in the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements under the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of four houses, 10 mobile homes, one business, and one church as well as 42.9 acres of wetlands across 24 sites and 268.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. One historic site, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, would be affected, as would 25.3 acres of Red River alluvial valley and 27.8 acres of upland highly likely to contain archaeological resource sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptor sites. Construction activities would affect three water wells, one producing oil well and six producing gas wells, and at least one hazardous material site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050234, 276 pages and maps, June 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 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/36369581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+15%2C+US+171+TO+I-20%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CADDO%2C+AND+DESOTO+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Determination of Appropriate Model for Infiltration in Coupled Subsurface and Surface Flow Applications T2 - 2005 SIAM Conference on Mathematical and Computational Issues in the Geosciences AN - 39666041; 3953676 JF - 2005 SIAM Conference on Mathematical and Computational Issues in the Geosciences AU - Talbot, Cary AU - Ogden, Fred AU - Howington, Stacy AU - Downer, Charles AU - Cheng, Hwai-Ping Y1 - 2005/06/07/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 Jun 07 KW - Models KW - Infiltration KW - U 2000:Biological Sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39666041?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=2005+SIAM+Conference+on+Mathematical+and+Computational+Issues+in+the+Geosciences&rft.atitle=Determination+of+Appropriate+Model+for+Infiltration+in+Coupled+Subsurface+and+Surface+Flow+Applications&rft.au=Talbot%2C+Cary%3BOgden%2C+Fred%3BHowington%2C+Stacy%3BDowner%2C+Charles%3BCheng%2C+Hwai-Ping&rft.aulast=Talbot&rft.aufirst=Cary&rft.date=2005-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=2005+SIAM+Conference+on+Mathematical+and+Computational+Issues+in+the+Geosciences&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://meetings.siam.org/program.cfm?CONFCODE=GS05 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-05-21 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36446506; 11554 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36446506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINTON AND IDAHO. AN - 36444262; 11553 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of routine maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel and berthing areas at certain local facilities on the lower Snake and Clearwater rivers in Washington and Idaho is proposed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility of operating and maintaining the authorized federal navigation channel in the lower Snake River from McNairy Reservoir on the mid-Columbia River, up the Snake River to its confluence with the Clearwater River near Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho, and up the Clearwater River to the Port of Lewiston. The Corps must maintain the Navigation channel at a depth of 14 feet and a width of 250 feet. Historically, the Corps has routinely maintained the channel through dredging to maintain its authorized dimensions, typically every three to five years; however, maintenance dredging has not been performed since the winter of 1998/99, when the Lower Monumental Dam navigation lock approach was dredged. Sediment is deposited in the channel during spring run off periods. Over time, the sediment buildup has reduced the proportion of the navigation channel with adequate depth, resulting in unsafe navigation conditions, forcing ports to operate at reduced capacity, and reducing the efficiency of vessel operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for maintenance dredging, with provisions for the beneficial use of dredged sediments. Up to 450,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged from five locations along the navigation project. Dredged material would be disposed of at an in-water site downstream of the dredging operations. Alternative 3 would involve maintenance dredging, with traditional in-water disposal. Alternative 4 would involve release of reservoir water focusing on navigation and spot dredging. Alternative 5 would provide for drawdown of the reservoir, sediment flushing, and dredging. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Channel maintenance would facilitate navigation and commodity movement and increase public safety along the corridor. Disposal of dredged material would create up to 3.7 acres if high-quality shallow-water rearing habitat and 11 acres of less suitable shallow-water habitat for salmonids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would result in minor turbidity impacts at five locations along the rivers. Ammonia and other contaminants would be released into the water column. Fall- and spring/summer-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. Recreation areas and boat access sites would continue to silt in, becoming inaccessible. Disposal of dredged material in shallow water habitat would smother the associated fauna and degrade the habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1875 (P.L. 79-14), and Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580). JF - EPA number: 050227, 422 pages, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Clearwater Rivers KW - Idaho KW - Snake River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36444262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+THE+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISOPSAL+PONDS+AS+A+CONFINED+UPLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+FACILITY%2C+CITY+OF+CALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+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, Walla Walla, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINTON AND IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINTON AND IDAHO. AN - 36389681; 11553-050227_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of routine maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel and berthing areas at certain local facilities on the lower Snake and Clearwater rivers in Washington and Idaho is proposed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility of operating and maintaining the authorized federal navigation channel in the lower Snake River from McNairy Reservoir on the mid-Columbia River, up the Snake River to its confluence with the Clearwater River near Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho, and up the Clearwater River to the Port of Lewiston. The Corps must maintain the Navigation channel at a depth of 14 feet and a width of 250 feet. Historically, the Corps has routinely maintained the channel through dredging to maintain its authorized dimensions, typically every three to five years; however, maintenance dredging has not been performed since the winter of 1998/99, when the Lower Monumental Dam navigation lock approach was dredged. Sediment is deposited in the channel during spring run off periods. Over time, the sediment buildup has reduced the proportion of the navigation channel with adequate depth, resulting in unsafe navigation conditions, forcing ports to operate at reduced capacity, and reducing the efficiency of vessel operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for maintenance dredging, with provisions for the beneficial use of dredged sediments. Up to 450,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged from five locations along the navigation project. Dredged material would be disposed of at an in-water site downstream of the dredging operations. Alternative 3 would involve maintenance dredging, with traditional in-water disposal. Alternative 4 would involve release of reservoir water focusing on navigation and spot dredging. Alternative 5 would provide for drawdown of the reservoir, sediment flushing, and dredging. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Channel maintenance would facilitate navigation and commodity movement and increase public safety along the corridor. Disposal of dredged material would create up to 3.7 acres if high-quality shallow-water rearing habitat and 11 acres of less suitable shallow-water habitat for salmonids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would result in minor turbidity impacts at five locations along the rivers. Ammonia and other contaminants would be released into the water column. Fall- and spring/summer-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. Recreation areas and boat access sites would continue to silt in, becoming inaccessible. Disposal of dredged material in shallow water habitat would smother the associated fauna and degrade the habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1875 (P.L. 79-14), and Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580). JF - EPA number: 050227, 422 pages, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Clearwater Rivers KW - Idaho KW - Snake River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36389681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.title=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINTON AND IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINTON AND IDAHO. AN - 36378395; 11553-050227_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of routine maintenance dredging of the federal navigation channel and berthing areas at certain local facilities on the lower Snake and Clearwater rivers in Washington and Idaho is proposed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the responsibility of operating and maintaining the authorized federal navigation channel in the lower Snake River from McNairy Reservoir on the mid-Columbia River, up the Snake River to its confluence with the Clearwater River near Clarkston, Washington and Lewiston, Idaho, and up the Clearwater River to the Port of Lewiston. The Corps must maintain the Navigation channel at a depth of 14 feet and a width of 250 feet. Historically, the Corps has routinely maintained the channel through dredging to maintain its authorized dimensions, typically every three to five years; however, maintenance dredging has not been performed since the winter of 1998/99, when the Lower Monumental Dam navigation lock approach was dredged. Sediment is deposited in the channel during spring run off periods. Over time, the sediment buildup has reduced the proportion of the navigation channel with adequate depth, resulting in unsafe navigation conditions, forcing ports to operate at reduced capacity, and reducing the efficiency of vessel operations. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for maintenance dredging, with provisions for the beneficial use of dredged sediments. Up to 450,000 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged from five locations along the navigation project. Dredged material would be disposed of at an in-water site downstream of the dredging operations. Alternative 3 would involve maintenance dredging, with traditional in-water disposal. Alternative 4 would involve release of reservoir water focusing on navigation and spot dredging. Alternative 5 would provide for drawdown of the reservoir, sediment flushing, and dredging. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Channel maintenance would facilitate navigation and commodity movement and increase public safety along the corridor. Disposal of dredged material would create up to 3.7 acres if high-quality shallow-water rearing habitat and 11 acres of less suitable shallow-water habitat for salmonids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would result in minor turbidity impacts at five locations along the rivers. Ammonia and other contaminants would be released into the water column. Fall- and spring/summer-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. Recreation areas and boat access sites would continue to silt in, becoming inaccessible. Disposal of dredged material in shallow water habitat would smother the associated fauna and degrade the habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1875 (P.L. 79-14), and Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580). JF - EPA number: 050227, 422 pages, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Clearwater Rivers KW - Idaho KW - Snake River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.title=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36372286; 050645D-050228_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36372286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36371764; 050645D-050228_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36371764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36371450; 050645D-050228_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36371450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36371043; 050645D-050228_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36371043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36371029; 050645D-050228_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36371029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36370985; 050645D-050228_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36370985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36370574; 050645D-050228_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36370574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36370530; 050645D-050228_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36370530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369451; 050645D-050228_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369419; 050645D-050228_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369413; 050645D-050228_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369384; 050645D-050228_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369330; 050645D-050228_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - ROUTE 460 LOCATION STUDY, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369057; 050645D-050228_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement to Route 460 and Route 58 from the interchange of Route 460 and Interstate 295 (I-295) to the interchange of Route 460 and Route 58 along the Suffolk Bypass in Prince George, Sussex, Surry, and Southampton counties, as well as within the Isle of Wight and the city of Suffolk, in Virginia is proposed. The study corridor extends 55 miles and is bordered by Route 10 to the north, the city of Hopewell and I-295 to the west, Route 58 to the east, and a line three miles south of the Norfolk Southern rail line to the south. Route 460 is characterized by design and operation deficiencies that cause safety and mobility problems. Crash rates for Route 460 are higher than other rural principal arterial roadways in the state. Truck traffic along the highway are higher than national averages for rural roads with similar functional classifications and are forecast to grow due to expansions at the Port of Virginia. In addition to a No-Build Alternative and a transportation systems management alternative, this draft EIS considers three alignment alternatives. Alternative CBA 1 would provide for a new alignment south of existing Route 460, beginning along Route 460 in the Kings Fork area of the Suffolk and ending at I-295 and including nine interchanges. Alternative CBA 2 would follow the alignment of existing Route 460, but would include northern bypasses around Windsor, Zuni, Ivor Wakefield, Waverly, and Disputanta. East of Windsor and throughout Suffolk, CBA 2 would be located on a new alignment, Along each bypass, access points would be provided to existing Route 460 and the secondary roads that lead to the towns, including Route 258 in Windsor, Route 620 in north of Ivor, Route 31 north of Wakefield, Route 40 north of Waverly, Route 625 north of Disputanta Route 156 in Prince George County, and I-295. Alternative CBA 3 would follow a new alignment generally north of existing Route 460. The CBA 2 alignment would be the same as that for CBA2 from Suffolk to Windsor, where it would continue north of existing Route 460. At Wakefield and Waverly, the alignment would join the alignment of the bypasses for CBA 2. West of Waverly, the alignment would continue northward toward the center of the study area north of the Blackwater River. Nine interchanges would provide access to the limited access facility. Capital costs of alternatives CB1, CB2, and CB3 are estimated at $522 million, $665 million, and $550 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing and ameliorating the abovementioned problems, the project would reduce travel delay as traffic volumes increase, provide adequate hurricane evacuation capability for Southside Hampton Roads communities; improve strategic military connectivity on a highway designated as part of the Strategic Highway Network by the Department of Defense and the Federal Highway Administration, and support regional economic development plans. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 517 to 707 agriculturally zoned land, 617 to 1,153 acres of prime farmland, up to 10 acres in agricultural and foresal districts, three to 41 acres of commercially and industrially zoned land, 1,420 to 1,987 acres of wetlands and forested land, 32 to 66 residences, one or two institutional facilities, and up to 18 businesses. Community cohesion in five to eight neighborhoods would be compromised. The project would affect 10,661 to 11,529 linear feet of perennial stream and 13,401 to 26,360 linear feet of intermittent streams. One regulatory wellhead protection area could be affected. From 58 to 85 acres of floodplains and three or four regulated floodways would be traversed. The highway project would affect an undetermined number of archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 91 to 182 residences and one or two schools or churches; 40 to 51 sites could benefit from noise control barriers. Up to 14 sites containing hazardous materials could be encountered during construction. The highway would encroach visually on three of four sensitive areas, 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: 050228, 223 pages and maps, June 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Virginia 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/36369057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=ROUTE+460+LOCATION+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+GEORGE+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36379386; 050642F-050223_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36379360; 050642F-050223_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36372817; 050642F-050223_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36372216; 050642F-050223_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36372168; 050642F-050223_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36372108; 050642F-050223_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372108?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36371604; 050642F-050223_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36371551; 050642F-050223_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1985-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=59&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMMUNIST+ETHIOPIA+-+IS+IT+SUCCEEDING%2C&rft.title=COMMUNIST+ETHIOPIA+-+IS+IT+SUCCEEDING%2C&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36371156; 050642F-050223_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36371128; 050642F-050223_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36370990; 050642F-050223_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36370865; 050642F-050223_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36369568; 050642F-050223_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-06-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=11400+SOUTH+STUDY+AREA%2C+SOUTHERN+SALT+LAKE+VALLEY%2C+SALT+LAKE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36369314; 050642F-050223_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - 11400 SOUTH STUDY AREA, SOUTHERN SALT LAKE VALLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36369225; 050642F-050223_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the transportation network in southern Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah is proposed. The study corridor lies 16 miles south of the center of Salt Lake City and extends from 12300/12600-South to 10400/10600-South and from Bangerter Highway to 700-East. The corridor encompasses portions of Sandy, Draper, Riverton, and South Jordan. The Salt Lake Valley is one of the fastest growing areas in the state; the overall population is expected to increase by 90 percent by the year 2030 over the 2000 population. With the large growth in population and associated economic development, travel demand will increase. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The build alternatives would include various combinations: improvements to existing roadways, construction of a new bridge and connecting roadway over the Jordan River, and construction of a new interchange on Interstate-15 (I-15). The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would include a new I-15 interchange and a new river crossing at 11400-South as well as widening of 10600-South to six lanes from just west of River Front Parkway to Jordan Gateway. In addition to these projects and transportation management measures, the alternative would include other interchange improvements related to I-15 connections, and intersection modifications. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $122 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed improvements would improve mobility in the study area, thereby supporting continued economic development to allow the affected communities to maintain their quality of life. The improvements would result in the addition of 1.4 million square feet of retail space and $4.7 million in sales tax revenue. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 residences and 0.57 acres of wetlands and of portions of land from 17 historic resource sites and six wildlife habitat protection areas that provide recreational opportunities. Four critical intersections would continue to operate over capacity. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 255 sensitive receptive sites, though 29 of these sites could benefit from mitigating noise control facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0240D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050223, 612 pages and maps, June 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=The+Journal+of+Communist+Studies+and+Transition+Politics&rft.atitle=Coloured+Revolutions%3A+The+View+from+Moscow+and+Beijing&rft.au=Wilson%2C+Jeanne+L&rft.aulast=Wilson&rft.aufirst=Jeanne&rft.date=2009-06-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=369&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+Communist+Studies+and+Transition+Politics&rft.issn=13523279&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F13523270902861061 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bioaccumulation and bioavailability of mirex from Lake Ontario sediments. AN - 68583960; 16158845 JF - Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology AU - Pickard, S W AU - Clarke, J U AU - Lotufo, G R AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, USA. Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - June 2005 SP - 1084 EP - 1091 VL - 74 IS - 6 SN - 0007-4861, 0007-4861 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - 0 KW - Mirex KW - Z917AN264P KW - Index Medicus KW - Environmental Monitoring KW - Geologic Sediments -- chemistry KW - Animals KW - Great Lakes Region KW - Biological Assay KW - Oligochaeta -- chemistry KW - Biological Availability KW - Mirex -- pharmacokinetics KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Mirex -- analysis KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- pharmacokinetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/68583960?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=Bulletin+of+environmental+contamination+and+toxicology&rft.atitle=Bioaccumulation+and+bioavailability+of+mirex+from+Lake+Ontario+sediments.&rft.au=Pickard%2C+S+W%3BClarke%2C+J+U%3BLotufo%2C+G+R&rft.aulast=Pickard&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1084&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+environmental+contamination+and+toxicology&rft.issn=00074861&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-10-04 N1 - Date created - 2005-09-14 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Alum; redox-sensitive phosphorus ratio considerations and uncertainties in the estimation of alum dosage to control sediment phosphorus AN - 51653366; 2006-001098 AB - Alum dosage requirements to immobilize loosely-bound and iron-bound sediment phosphorus (P) fractions (i.e., redox-sensitive P fractions) in the surface sediments of eutrophic, Squaw Lake, Wisconsin, were determined using alum assay procedures developed by Rydin and Welch (1999). Since the lake exhibits a low buffering capacity (alkalinity = 25 mg Ca L (super -1) ), an alkalinity-based calculation could not be used to estimate alum dosage. Redox-sensitive sediment P fractions of surficial sediments, which represented 44% of the inorganic sediment P, were depleted by greater than 90% at an alum (as Al):redox-sensitive P binding ratio of approximately 100:1. Our results suggest that a higher dosage of alum, based on a higher alum:redox-sensitive P binding ratio requirement, is necessary to achieve effective control of sediment P in this lake. However, uncertainties still exist in the calculation of an alum dosage based on redox-sensitive sediment P concentration. More research is needed to validate optimal alum:redox-sensitive P binding ratios for use in sediment P-based alum dosage calculations. Criteria for estimating the layer of profundal sediment (i.e., the volume of redox-sensitive sediment P or the active layer of sediment contributing to diffusive P flux) to treat is also needed in order to estimate a cost-effective alum dosage for reducing internal P loading. JF - Lake and Reservoir Management AU - James, William F Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - June 2005 SP - 159 EP - 164 PB - North American Lake Management Society, Madison, WI VL - 21 IS - 2 SN - 1040-2381, 1040-2381 KW - United States KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - sediment-water interface KW - sulfates KW - Squaw Lake KW - phosphorus KW - alum KW - preventive measures KW - cores KW - environmental management KW - spatial distribution KW - laboratory studies KW - Oneida County Wisconsin KW - sediments KW - lacustrine environment KW - water content KW - Wisconsin KW - west-central Wisconsin KW - mobility KW - geochemistry KW - Eh KW - lake sediments 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/51653366?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=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.atitle=Alum%3B+redox-sensitive+phosphorus+ratio+considerations+and+uncertainties+in+the+estimation+of+alum+dosage+to+control+sediment+phosphorus&rft.au=James%2C+William+F&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=159&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.issn=10402381&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - PubXState - WI N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alum; concentration; cores; Eh; environmental management; experimental studies; geochemistry; laboratory studies; lacustrine environment; lake sediments; mobility; Oneida County Wisconsin; phosphorus; preventive measures; sediment-water interface; sediments; spatial distribution; Squaw Lake; sulfates; United States; water content; west-central Wisconsin; Wisconsin ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Slope-failure analysis and classification; review of a century of effort AN - 51255186; 2008-061802 JF - Physical Geography AU - Schroder, John F, Jr AU - Cverckova, Lubica AU - Mulhern, Kimberlee L Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - June 2005 SP - 216 EP - 247 PB - Bellwether Publishing, Columbia, MD VL - 26 IS - 3 SN - 0272-3646, 0272-3646 KW - nomenclature KW - failures KW - geologic hazards KW - definition KW - research KW - slumping KW - landslides KW - mass movements KW - classification KW - geomorphology KW - slope stability KW - review KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51255186?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%3Aeisfulltext&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.bellpub.com/phg/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 160 N1 - PubXState - MD N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, charts N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - classification; definition; failures; geologic hazards; geomorphology; landslides; mass movements; nomenclature; research; review; slope stability; slumping ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of an indigenous pathogen for management of the submersed freshwater macrophyte Hydrilla verticillata AN - 20714861; 6610418 AB - Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle (hydrilla) is considered one of the three most important aquatic weeds in the world. Plant infestations can impede navigation, clog drainage or irrigation canals, affect water intake systems, interfere with recreational activities, and disrupt wildlife habitats. The plant is an excellent competitor in aquatic habitats because it can photosynthesize at low light levels, has wide environmental tolerances, and produces several types of extended survival propagules. The indigenous fungal pathogen, Mycoleptodiscus terrestris (Gerd.) Ostazeski, (Mt) has shown significant potential for use as a bioherbicide for management of hydrilla. Liquid fermentation methods have been developed and patented that yield stable, effective bioherbicidal propagules of Mt. Under appropriate nutritional conditions, aerated Mt cultures produce high concentrations of vegetative biomass that differentiates to form compact hyphal aggregates or microsclerotia (ms). The microsclerotia germinate both vegetatively and sporogenically thus improving their potential to infect and kill hydrilla. Applied as a liquid inoculum to hydrilla the microsclerotial matrix was capable of significantly reducing hydrilla shoot biomass as high as 99%. Air-dried microsclerotia were capable of hyphal germination in 24 hours and sporogenic germination in 72 hours. Hyphal germination of the microsclerotia that impinge on hydrilla plant surfaces can provide initial infection sites followed several days later by secondary infection resulting from the development and release of spores from the surface of the microsclerotia. Dry inoculum applied at 40 mg/L has been shown to reduce hydrilla shoot biomass greater than 93% and up to 100% by 4 weeks post inoculation compared to untreated control plants. JF - Phytopathology AU - Shearer, J F AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - Jun 2005 PB - American Phytopathological Society, 3340 Pilot Knob Road St. Paul MN 55121-2097 USA, [URL:http://www.apsnet.org/phyto/top.asp] VL - 95 IS - 6 SN - 0031-949X, 0031-949X KW - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology KW - Weeds KW - Propagules KW - Water intake KW - Fermentation KW - Survival KW - Hydrilla verticillata KW - Inoculum KW - Germination KW - Freshwater environments KW - Drainage KW - Irrigation KW - Wildlife KW - Aquatic plants KW - Secondary infection KW - Pathogens KW - Habitat KW - Biomass KW - Light effects KW - Shoots KW - Macrophytes KW - Canals KW - Infestation KW - Mycoleptodiscus terrestris KW - Inoculation KW - Spores KW - A 01014:Others KW - W 30945:Fermentation & Cell Culture KW - K 03420:Plant Diseases UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20714861?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%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=Phytopathology&rft.atitle=Development+of+an+indigenous+pathogen+for+management+of+the+submersed+freshwater+macrophyte+Hydrilla+verticillata&rft.au=Shearer%2C+J+F&rft.aulast=Shearer&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Phytopathology&rft.issn=0031949X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Germination; Weeds; Propagules; Freshwater environments; Fermentation; Water intake; Drainage; Wildlife; Irrigation; Aquatic plants; Survival; Pathogens; Secondary infection; Biomass; Habitat; Light effects; Shoots; Canals; Macrophytes; Infestation; Inoculum; Inoculation; Spores; Mycoleptodiscus terrestris; Hydrilla verticillata ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ecology, Planning, and River Management in the United States: Some Historical Reflections AN - 20615422; 7076708 AB - River ecologists are also river-basin planners. However, their role in planning has developed slowly over the decades since the beginning of the 20th century. Three major factors explain this phenomenon. First, ecologists focused on plant and animal communities rather than on broader policy issues related to land settlement and water development. Second, the federal government, and most state and local governments as well, used mainly economic criteria to justify projects. Intangible benefits, including the value of species or an aesthetically pleasing landscape, drew relatively little attention. Third, the public generally favored development, especially during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Only after World War II did the public's position shift in favor of more preservation, as ecologists developed the concept of the ecosystem, large dam projects forced basin inhabitants from their homes, and chemical and nuclear pollutants threatened the environment. Also, urbanization increased support for the preservation of recreation sites and of streams undisturbed by human intervention. Meanwhile, partly through important advances in geomorphology and hydrology, ecologists acquired new tools to understand the land-water relationship within river basins. Neverthless, benefit-cost analysis continued to dominate federal water-resources planning, and organizational culture and competing or overlapping bureaucracies hampered rational water resources administration. Environmental groups and physical, natural, and even social scientists began to promote alternative ways to develop rivers. Today, the ideas of integrated water resources management, sustainable development, and comprehensive river-basin management dominate much of the thinking about the future course of river planning in the United States. Any future planning must include ecologists who can help their planning colleagues choose from among rational choices that balance ecological and human demands, provide advice when planning guidance is drafted, assist engineers in designing projects that lead to ecologically responsible solutions, and help monitor results. JF - Ecology and Society AU - Reuss, M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - Jun 2005 VL - 10 IS - 1 SN - 1708-3087, 1708-3087 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Water Management KW - Urbanization KW - Basins KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Streams KW - Water Resources Development KW - war KW - Cost-benefit analysis KW - Ecology KW - Planning KW - Economics KW - Ecosystem management KW - Regional planning KW - Hydrology KW - River basin management KW - Rivers KW - land settlement KW - River basins KW - Environmental legislation KW - ecologists KW - USA KW - Water management KW - Preservation KW - geomorphology KW - River Basin Management KW - Benefits KW - bureaucracy KW - National planning KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20615422?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=Ecology+and+Society&rft.atitle=Ecology%2C+Planning%2C+and+River+Management+in+the+United+States%3A+Some+Historical+Reflections&rft.au=Reuss%2C+M&rft.aulast=Reuss&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecology+and+Society&rft.issn=17083087&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Urbanization; Water management; Hydrology; Water resources; Regional planning; River basins; Environmental legislation; River basin management; National planning; Rivers; Economics; Ecosystem management; land settlement; Basins; war; ecologists; Ecology; Cost-benefit analysis; geomorphology; bureaucracy; Water Management; Planning; Preservation; Benefits; River Basin Management; Water Resources Development; Streams; USA; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Biologically Labile and Refractory Phosphorus Loads from the Agriculturally-Managed Upper Eau Galle River Watershed, Wisconsin AN - 20605534; 6398292 AB - Fractionation techniques were used to quantify various biologically labile (i.e., directly available for biological uptake or subject to recycling pathways) and refractory (i.e., biologically unavailable and subject to burial) particulate and soluble phosphorus (P) forms along the longitudinal axis of the agriculturally-managed Upper Eau Galle River watershed in west-central Wisconsin. P loading increased as a function of increasing distance from the river's headwaters. However, areal P export rates were similar longitudinally, indicating a relatively homogeneous land-use mosaic throughout the watershed. P loads were composed of predominantly biologically labile constituents (i.e., 79%), with soluble P forms (i.e., soluble reactive and unreactive P) accounting for 49% and labile particulate P forms (i.e., loosely-bound PP, iron-bound PP, and labile organic/polyphosphate PP) accounting for 30% of the P load. Soluble P forms are either directly available for biological uptake or can be converted to available forms through enzymatic (i.e., alkaline phosphatase) reactions. Deposition and retention of loosely-bound and iron-bound PP in the receiving impoundment, Eau Galle Reservoir, can become an important source of internal P loading via eH and pH chemical reactions. Suspended solids loads also exhibited a high equilibrium P concentration (i.e., EPC > 0.10 mg L super(-1)) that was similar to flow-weighted soluble reactive P concentrations in the river, suggesting equilibrium control of soluble P as loads entered the reservoir. The high EPC and a linear adsorption coefficient approaching 1000 L kg super(-1) indicated that binding sites of eroded soils in the runoff were enriched with P due to soil nutrient management. Our results indicated that transformations, transport, and fate of biologically labile PP, as well as soluble P, need to be considered in load reduction management to eutrophic receiving waters. JF - Lake and Reservoir Management AU - James, W F AU - Barko, J W AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, PO Box 237, Spring Valley, WI 54767, USA Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - Jun 2005 SP - 165 EP - 173 VL - 21 IS - 2 SN - 1040-2381, 1040-2381 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Land Use KW - Agricultural Runoff KW - Water reservoirs KW - Eutrophic waters KW - Organic Loading KW - USA, Wisconsin, Eau Galle Reservoir KW - Phosphorus KW - Nutrients KW - Freshwater KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Retention KW - Watersheds KW - Lakes KW - soil nutrients KW - Suspended Solids KW - Chemical Reactions KW - Absorption KW - Reservoirs KW - Agricultural runoff KW - pH KW - Rivers KW - Pollution Load KW - Suspended Load KW - Export KW - Land use KW - Fractionation KW - Chemical reactions KW - Impoundments KW - Eutrophication KW - Particulates KW - Recycling KW - Waste management KW - Receiving Waters KW - Headwaters KW - Nonpoint Pollution Sources KW - Hydrogen Ion Concentration KW - Suspended particulate matter KW - Reservoir Management KW - Equilibrium KW - Adsorption KW - Deposition KW - Sri Lanka, Southern, Galle KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q2 09184:Composition of water KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20605534?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=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.atitle=Biologically+Labile+and+Refractory+Phosphorus+Loads+from+the+Agriculturally-Managed+Upper+Eau+Galle+River+Watershed%2C+Wisconsin&rft.au=James%2C+W+F%3BBarko%2C+J+W&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=165&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.issn=10402381&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Water reservoirs; Eutrophic waters; Chemical reactions; Phosphorus; Suspended particulate matter; Watersheds; Agricultural runoff; Eutrophication; Particulates; Recycling; Land use; Waste management; Lakes; Fractionation; soil nutrients; Impoundments; Reservoirs; pH; Land Use; Headwaters; Agricultural Runoff; Organic Loading; Nonpoint Pollution Sources; Hydrogen Ion Concentration; Pollution Load; Nutrients; Suspended Load; Retention; Export; Reservoir Management; Equilibrium; Suspended Solids; Chemical Reactions; Adsorption; Absorption; Receiving Waters; Deposition; USA, Wisconsin, Eau Galle Reservoir; USA, Wisconsin; Sri Lanka, Southern, Galle; Freshwater ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Evaluation of Wanapum Dam Bypass Configurations for Outmigrating Juvenile Salmon Using Virtual Fish: Numerical Fish Surrogate (NFS) Analysis AN - 19444676; 7170612 AB - As part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process, Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County (the District) wishes to improve performance of fish bypass at Wanapum Dam. The Numerical Fish Surrogate (NFS) is a Eulerian-Lagrangian-agent model (ELAM) developed for analyzing, decoding, and forecasting the movement and passage behavior response of outmigrating juvenile salmon (migrants) in complex 3-D hydrodynamic fields near fish bypass systems in hydropower dam forebays. The NFS (and ELAMs, in general) uses a mechanistic "plug-and-play" behavior algorithm embodying a biological hypothesis of how an individual responds to biotic and/or abiotic stimuli. The University of Iowa IIHR - Hydroscience and Engineering developed a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to describe the 3-D steady-state hydrodynamic fields associated with 12 different structural and operational fish bypass system configurations (cases) at Wanapum Dam. In Phase 1 of the study, forecast (virtual fish) and observed (radio-tagged fish) passage proportions were compared for five different cases from years 1997, 2001, and 2002. Comparison of forecast and observed passage for four out of the five cases were done blindly (i.e., independently reviewed and evaluated) and within the expected limits of about 5 to 10 percent for the bypass systems and considerably better than forecasts of passage from passive particles (i.e., behavior rules turned off). This indicates migrant movement behavior in the flow field is likely an integral part of bypass success. In Phase 2 of the study, the NFS was used to forecast the passage response of migrants to seven different structural and operational design alternatives under consideration for Wanapum Dam prior to construction and installation. Results indicate the NFS is a viable technology for use at Wanapum Dam to assess different fish bypass design alternatives. NFS performance is limited by (a) the robustness of the underlying mechanistic biological hypothesis, (b) accuracy and resolution of the CFD modeled hydrodynamics, and (c) accuracy and robustness of the observed (radio-tagged fish) passage proportions for describing the passage response of a target species or population. Concurrence between forecast and observed passage proportions supports the Strain-Velocity-Pressure (SVP) Hypothesis as an approximation of the strategy used by migrants to hydraulically navigate through complex flow fields. The NFS may be used to reduce uncertainty and, therefore, the cost and impact on migrants, in the process of designing and operating bypasses. NFS accuracy is expected to improve with additional observed data and model calibration. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Goodwin, R A AU - Nestler, J M AU - Toney, T AU - Anderson, J J AU - Kim, J Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - June 2005 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Salmon KW - Prediction KW - Dam Design KW - Juveniles KW - Inland waters KW - Mathematical models KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Anadromous species KW - Fish Passages KW - Biotelemetry KW - Tracking KW - Model Studies KW - Performance Evaluation KW - Behavior KW - USA, Iowa KW - Dams KW - Fluid dynamics KW - Fish KW - Salmonidae KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444676?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=Goodwin%2C+R+A%3BNestler%2C+J+M%3BToney%2C+T%3BAnderson%2C+J+J%3BKim%2C+J&rft.aulast=Goodwin&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Wanapum+Dam+Bypass+Configurations+for+Outmigrating+Juvenile+Salmon+Using+Virtual+Fish%3A+Numerical+Fish+Surrogate+%28NFS%29+Analysis&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Wanapum+Dam+Bypass+Configurations+for+Outmigrating+Juvenile+Salmon+Using+Virtual+Fish%3A+Numerical+Fish+Surrogate+%28NFS%29+Analysis&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toward Integration in Reservoir Management AN - 16191948; 6398288 AB - Reservoirs are engineered features of hydrologic landscapes with characteristics defined by engineering design criteria. Many of these characteristics impact water quality. Reservoir management has historically been dictated by water control requirements; environment and water quality have been secondary considerations. Management approaches that address inputs of nutrients, sediment and organic material as root causes of eutrophication have been difficult to implement due to the location of reservoirs in large, complex watersheds. Costly engineering solutions that reduce symptoms of problems rather than address their cause are favored over watershed-based approaches applied to smaller natural lakes. To be successful, future management initiatives will require more integrative approaches that recognize reservoirs as integral components of watersheds and river basins. Understanding interactions between engineering practice and water quality fosters the development and implementation of effective management approaches that address environmental and water quality concerns as well as water quantity. JF - Lake and Reservoir Management AU - Kennedy, R H AD - European Research Office, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Edison House, 223 Old Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5TH, UK Y1 - 2005/06// PY - 2005 DA - Jun 2005 SP - 128 EP - 138 VL - 21 IS - 2 SN - 1040-2381, 1040-2381 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts KW - River Basins KW - Water reservoirs KW - Eutrophication KW - Fluvial Sediments KW - Water Supply KW - Reservoir Operation KW - Roots KW - Nutrients KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Watersheds KW - Environmental factors KW - Lakes KW - Engineering KW - Hydrology KW - Wetlands KW - Water Quality Control KW - Water Control KW - Reservoirs KW - Environmental Engineering KW - Water Quality KW - River basins KW - Sediments KW - Reservoir Management KW - Water management KW - Design Criteria KW - Natural resources KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control KW - SW 2010:Control of water on the surface UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16191948?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%3Aeisfulltext&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water reservoirs; Water management; Natural resources; Hydrology; Wetlands; River basins; Watersheds; Water quality; Environmental factors; Reservoirs; Environmental Engineering; River Basins; Eutrophication; Fluvial Sediments; Water Quality; Water Supply; Roots; Reservoir Operation; Nutrients; Sediments; Reservoir Management; Engineering; Lakes; Design Criteria; Water Quality Control; Water Control; Freshwater ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 IMPROVEMENTS, PAYNESVILLE, MINNESOTA. AN - 36437249; 11540 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of Trunk Highway (TH) 23 from 0.25 mile west of County State-Aid Highway (CSAH) 6 to 0.3 mile southwest of SCAH 123 in and around Paynesville, Kandiyohi and Stearns counties, Minnesota is proposed. The study corridor is located in central Minnesota approximately 80 miles northwest of Minneapolis and 20 miles southwest of the Interstate 94/TH 23 interchange near St. Cloud. Locally and regionally, TH 23 serves as a major connection between the area's residents and employment and service centers as well as a key recreational and tourist access route. Tourist travel along TH 23 creates high seasonal and weekend traffic peaks that cause congestion. The segment through the city of Paynesville is a link in the route connecting St. Cloud and Willmar; Paynesville bypass alternatives have been proposed in the past. The large number of access points along TH 23 exceeds regional planning spacing guidelines. The skewed intersection of TH 23 and TH 55 and the narrow Canadian Pacific rail underpass exhibit substandard geometrics. Projected level of service for the year 2020 fails to meet standards during weekday morning and evening peak periods year-round and level of service is even lower during summer recreational travel periods. The proposed action would involve the construction of a four-lane, divided highway, using either a new alignment that would meet design standards for a rural expressway with a 70-ile-per-hour design speed and controlled access or a combination of new and existing alignments that would meet design standards for an urban roadway. A No-Build Alternative and four alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Alignment alternatives include two western bypasses, an eastern bypass, and improvements on the existing alignment through Paynesville. Costs of the build alternatives range from $18 million to $36 million; and the benefit-cost ratios range from 1.8 for the low-cost alternative and to 2.6 for the high-cost alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the improvements to TH 23 would enhance the facility's function as an interregional corridor by discouraging additional traffic signals and direct access, preserving rights-of-way, and adopting a corridor management plan. The facility would provide a transportation system with sufficient capacity and operational efficiency to serve forecasted traffic volumes adequately. Substandard geometrics would be corrected or eliminated, and safety-related problems and potentials for traffic crashes would be addressed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 24 residences, 218 to 261 acres of farmland for the bypass alternatives (no farmland would be taken for the through-town alignment alternative), and one to 12 acres of wetlands. the far western bypass and the eastern bypass would affect the Glacial Lakes Trail and a driving range, respectively, and the through-town alternative would affect Memorial Park. One or two cultural resource sites would be affected if a bypass alternative were chosen. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 113 to 183 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 11 to 83 contaminated properties within the rights-of-way. 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: 050213, 247 pages and maps, May 26, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-05-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources 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/36437249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+PAYNESVILLE%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+PAYNESVILLE%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 IMPROVEMENTS, PAYNESVILLE, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 23 IMPROVEMENTS, PAYNESVILLE, MINNESOTA. AN - 36371261; 050639D-050213_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of Trunk Highway (TH) 23 from 0.25 mile west of County State-Aid Highway (CSAH) 6 to 0.3 mile southwest of SCAH 123 in and around Paynesville, Kandiyohi and Stearns counties, Minnesota is proposed. The study corridor is located in central Minnesota approximately 80 miles northwest of Minneapolis and 20 miles southwest of the Interstate 94/TH 23 interchange near St. Cloud. Locally and regionally, TH 23 serves as a major connection between the area's residents and employment and service centers as well as a key recreational and tourist access route. Tourist travel along TH 23 creates high seasonal and weekend traffic peaks that cause congestion. The segment through the city of Paynesville is a link in the route connecting St. Cloud and Willmar; Paynesville bypass alternatives have been proposed in the past. The large number of access points along TH 23 exceeds regional planning spacing guidelines. The skewed intersection of TH 23 and TH 55 and the narrow Canadian Pacific rail underpass exhibit substandard geometrics. Projected level of service for the year 2020 fails to meet standards during weekday morning and evening peak periods year-round and level of service is even lower during summer recreational travel periods. The proposed action would involve the construction of a four-lane, divided highway, using either a new alignment that would meet design standards for a rural expressway with a 70-ile-per-hour design speed and controlled access or a combination of new and existing alignments that would meet design standards for an urban roadway. A No-Build Alternative and four alternative alignments are considered in this draft EIS. Alignment alternatives include two western bypasses, an eastern bypass, and improvements on the existing alignment through Paynesville. Costs of the build alternatives range from $18 million to $36 million; and the benefit-cost ratios range from 1.8 for the low-cost alternative and to 2.6 for the high-cost alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the improvements to TH 23 would enhance the facility's function as an interregional corridor by discouraging additional traffic signals and direct access, preserving rights-of-way, and adopting a corridor management plan. The facility would provide a transportation system with sufficient capacity and operational efficiency to serve forecasted traffic volumes adequately. Substandard geometrics would be corrected or eliminated, and safety-related problems and potentials for traffic crashes would be addressed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 24 residences, 218 to 261 acres of farmland for the bypass alternatives (no farmland would be taken for the through-town alignment alternative), and one to 12 acres of wetlands. the far western bypass and the eastern bypass would affect the Glacial Lakes Trail and a driving range, respectively, and the through-town alternative would affect Memorial Park. One or two cultural resource sites would be affected if a bypass alternative were chosen. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 113 to 183 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 11 to 83 contaminated properties within the rights-of-way. 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: 050213, 247 pages and maps, May 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-05-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources 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/36371261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+PAYNESVILLE%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+23+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+PAYNESVILLE%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, St. Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Extremely High Resolution Bathymetry and "Fly Through" Visualization Model of the St. Louis Harbor, Mississippi River, for the Determination of moving Versus Non-Moving Bed Zones AN - 40051147; 3929188 AU - Davinroy, Robert D AU - Clouse, Paul D AU - Rawson, Don E AU - Tobin, Thomas G Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40051147?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=&rft.atitle=Extremely+High+Resolution+Bathymetry+and+%22Fly+Through%22+Visualization+Model+of+the+St.+Louis+Harbor%2C+Mississippi+River%2C+for+the+Determination+of+moving+Versus+Non-Moving+Bed+Zones&rft.au=Davinroy%2C+Robert+D%3BClouse%2C+Paul+D%3BRawson%2C+Don+E%3BTobin%2C+Thomas+G&rft.aulast=Davinroy&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Swimming, Skimming, and Hunkering Down: Station-Holding by Acipenseriform fishes and Entrainment Risk by Dredges AN - 40021829; 3929210 AU - Hoover, Jan J AU - Killgore, K Jack AU - Clarke, Doug Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40021829?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=&rft.atitle=Swimming%2C+Skimming%2C+and+Hunkering+Down%3A+Station-Holding+by+Acipenseriform+fishes+and+Entrainment+Risk+by+Dredges&rft.au=Hoover%2C+Jan+J%3BKillgore%2C+K+Jack%3BClarke%2C+Doug&rft.aulast=Hoover&rft.aufirst=Jan&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - The Real Poop on Pallid Sturgeon Ecology: Fecal Analysis as a Technique for Reconstructing Diet and Inferring Habitat and Behavior AN - 40021775; 3929202 AU - George, Steven G AU - Hoover, Jan J AU - Murphy, Catherine E AU - Killgore, K Jack Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40021775?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=&rft.atitle=The+Real+Poop+on+Pallid+Sturgeon+Ecology%3A+Fecal+Analysis+as+a+Technique+for+Reconstructing+Diet+and+Inferring+Habitat+and+Behavior&rft.au=George%2C+Steven+G%3BHoover%2C+Jan+J%3BMurphy%2C+Catherine+E%3BKillgore%2C+K+Jack&rft.aulast=George&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - A Laboratory Examination of Substrate, Depth, and Light Use by Juvenile Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) and Shovelnose (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) Sturgeon AN - 40021723; 3929198 AU - Allen, Teri C AU - Lamm, Dawn AU - Davinroy, Robert D Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/40021723?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=&rft.atitle=A+Laboratory+Examination+of+Substrate%2C+Depth%2C+and+Light+Use+by+Juvenile+Pallid+%28Scaphirhynchus+albus%29+and+Shovelnose+%28Scaphirhynchus+platorynchus%29+Sturgeon&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Habitat and Population Attributes of Pallid Sturgeon in the Lower Mississippi River AN - 39970782; 3929180 AU - Killgore, K Jack AU - Hoover, Jan J AU - George, Steven G AU - Lewis, Bradley R AU - Murphy, Catherine E Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39970782?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=&rft.atitle=Habitat+and+Population+Attributes+of+Pallid+Sturgeon+in+the+Lower+Mississippi+River&rft.au=Killgore%2C+K+Jack%3BHoover%2C+Jan+J%3BGeorge%2C+Steven+G%3BLewis%2C+Bradley+R%3BMurphy%2C+Catherine+E&rft.aulast=Killgore&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Morphometric Variation Among Scaphirhynchus Specimens in the Lower and Middle Mississippi River AN - 39970746; 3929164 AU - Murphy, Catherine E AU - Hoover, Jan J AU - George, Steven G AU - Killgore, K Jack Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39970746?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=&rft.atitle=Morphometric+Variation+Among+Scaphirhynchus+Specimens+in+the+Lower+and+Middle+Mississippi+River&rft.au=Murphy%2C+Catherine+E%3BHoover%2C+Jan+J%3BGeorge%2C+Steven+G%3BKillgore%2C+K+Jack&rft.aulast=Murphy&rft.aufirst=Catherine&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Shallow Water Habitat Construction--Missouri River, Ponca to the Mouth AN - 39960498; 3929201 AU - Remus, John I, II Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39960498?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=&rft.atitle=Shallow+Water+Habitat+Construction--Missouri+River%2C+Ponca+to+the+Mouth&rft.au=Remus%2C+John+I%2C+II&rft.aulast=Remus&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; URL: http://bio.slu.edu N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Use of RNA microarray technology as a biomarker for exposure of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) to 2, 4-dinitrotoluene AN - 39915539; 3931223 AU - Yoo, J L AU - Steevens, JA AU - Gibson, AB AU - Vulpe, C D AU - Wintz, H M Y1 - 2005/05/25/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 25 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 2000:Biology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39915539?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=&rft.atitle=Use+of+RNA+microarray+technology+as+a+biomarker+for+exposure+of+fathead+minnow+%28Pimephales+promelas%29+to+2%2C+4-dinitrotoluene&rft.au=Yoo%2C+J+L%3BSteevens%2C+JA%3BGibson%2C+AB%3BVulpe%2C+C+D%3BWintz%2C+H+M&rft.aulast=Yoo&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - SuppNotes - Availability: The Society of Toxicology, 1767 Business Center Drive, Suite 302, Resont, VA 20190-5332, USA; phone: 703-438-3115; fax: 703-438-3113; URL: http://www.toxicology.org N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Effects of Water Residence Time on Nitrate Removal in Flow-Regulated Backwater Lakes of the UMR Flood Plain T2 - 53rd Joint Meeting of the North American Benthological Society and American Geophysical Union AN - 39961859; 3952450 JF - 53rd Joint Meeting of the North American Benthological Society and American Geophysical Union AU - James, William AU - Richardson, William AU - Strauss, Eric AU - Soballe, David AU - Barko, John Y1 - 2005/05/23/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 23 KW - Backwaters KW - Residence time KW - Flood plains KW - Nitrate KW - Lakes KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39961859?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=53rd+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North+American+Benthological+Society+and+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.atitle=Effects+of+Water+Residence+Time+on+Nitrate+Removal+in+Flow-Regulated+Backwater+Lakes+of+the+UMR+Flood+Plain&rft.au=James%2C+William%3BRichardson%2C+William%3BStrauss%2C+Eric%3BSoballe%2C+David%3BBarko%2C+John&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-05-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=53rd+Joint+Meeting+of+the+North+American+Benthological+Society+and+American+Geophysical+Union&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.benthos.org/Database/searchallnabstracts.cfm/subset/NewOrleans20 05abstracts LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-09-05 N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Miniaturized Lead Sensor Based on Lead-Specific DNAzyme in a Nanocapillary Interconnected Microfluidic Device AN - 17130385; 6756915 AB - A miniaturized lead sensor has been developed by combining a lead-specific DNAzyme with a microfabricated device containing a network of microfluidic channels that are fluidically coupled via a nanocapillary array interconnect. A DNAzyme construct, selective for cleavage in the presence of Pb super(2+) and derivatized with fluorophore (quencher) at the 5' (3') end of the substrate and enzyme strands, respectively, forms a molecular beacon that is used as the recognition element. The nanocapillary array membrane interconnect is used to manipulate fluid flows and deliver the small-volume sample to the beacon in a spatially confined detection window where the DNAzyme is interrogated using laser-induced fluorescence detection. A transformed log plot of the fluorescent signal exhibits a linear response (r super(2) = 0.982) over a Pb super(2+) concentration range of 0.1-100 mu M, and a detection limit of 11 nM. The sensor has been applied to the determination of Pb super(2+) in an electroplating sludge reference material, the result agreeing with the certified value within 4.9%. Quantitative measurement of Pb super(2+) in this complex sample demonstrates the selectivity of this sensor scheme and points favorably to the application of such technologies to analysis of environmental samples. The unique combination of a DNAzyme with a microfluidic-nanofluidic hybrid device makes it possible to change the DNAzyme to select for other compounds of interest, and to incorporate multiple sensing systems within a single device for greater flexibility. This work represents the initial steps toward creation of a robust field sensor for lead in groundwater or drinking water. JF - Environmental Science & Technology AU - Chang, In-Hyoung AU - Tulock, J J AU - Liu, Juewen AU - Kim, Won-Suk AU - Cannon, DM Jr AU - Lu, Yi AU - Bohn, P W AU - Sweedler, J V AU - Cropek, D M AD - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Champaign, IL 61822, USA, Donald.M.Cropek@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/05/15/ PY - 2005 DA - 2005 May 15 SP - 3756 EP - 3761 VL - 39 IS - 10 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Fluorescence KW - Sludges KW - Hybrids KW - Ground water KW - Enzymes KW - fluorophores KW - Drinking water KW - Fluid flow KW - Lead KW - W4 230:Biosensors, Bioelectronics & Bioindicators KW - W 30965:Miscellaneous, Reviews UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17130385?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%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.atitle=Miniaturized+Lead+Sensor+Based+on+Lead-Specific+DNAzyme+in+a+Nanocapillary+Interconnected+Microfluidic+Device&rft.au=Chang%2C+In-Hyoung%3BTulock%2C+J+J%3BLiu%2C+Juewen%3BKim%2C+Won-Suk%3BCannon%2C+DM+Jr%3BLu%2C+Yi%3BBohn%2C+P+W%3BSweedler%2C+J+V%3BCropek%2C+D+M&rft.aulast=Chang&rft.aufirst=In-Hyoung&rft.date=2005-05-15&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3756&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fes040505f LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Lead; Sludges; Drinking water; Fluid flow; Fluorescence; Enzymes; fluorophores; Hybrids; Ground water DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es040505f ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. AN - 16349636; 11516 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood damage reduction project in Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania is proposed. Past flood events have resulted in extensive damages to structures and their contents and have threatened public safety. In addition, floods have disrup0ted major transportation systems, requiring closure of roads, railroads, and the municipal airport. Extensive portions of the Bloomsburg study are lie within the 500-year floodplain of the Susquehanna River and Fishing Creek. The floodplain encompasses approximately 525 residential structures and 75 businesses and local government buildings. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would consist of a system of earthen levees, mechanically stabilized earth floodwalls, concrete floodwalls, railroad and road closure structures, and roadway relocations to provide ramps over the line of protection. The alternative would provide approximately 9,600 feet of full levee embankment in the town of Bloomsburg and, for the purpose of mitigation for increased flooding, approximately 4,350 feet of full levee embankment in Fernville. The project would include nine interior drainage structures in Bloomsburg and five in Fernville. Other alternatives considered involve different levee alignments through Bloomsburg for flood protection, non-structural solutions and, as required, the No Action Alternative. Initial cost of the project is estimated at $41.4 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.38. The fully funded cost estimate is $46.2 million. Federal funding would amount to $30.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide protection against a 440-year event on the Susquehanna River and against 100-year event along Fishing Creek. Without doing undue damage to the riverine ecosystem, the project would provide flood protection for all homes and businesses, as well as all infrastructures, in the floodplain not displaced due to the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 11.5 acres of farmland of prime or statewide importance would be permanently converted to non-agricultural use. In addition, the project would alter 0.69 acre of Fishing Creek stream bottom habitat due to placement of riprap, displace two acres of vegetated Fishing Creek riparian area, fill 0.7 acre of wetlands, and require relocation of 27 residences, four businesses, and a mobile home park with 29 mobile homes. Views of Fishing Creek from Bloomsburg and Fernville and views from Fishing Creek would be obscured by the levee/floodwall system. Construction of the system would require excavation and off-site disposal of 4,500 cubic yards of hazardous, toxic, and radiological waste materials. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 050189, pages. 104 pages, May 5, 2005 PY - 2005 EP - ages. 104 pages, May 5 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Pennsylvania KW - Fishing Creek KW - Susquehanna River KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages.+104+pages&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOWN+OF+BLOOMSBURG%2C+COLUMBIA+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT.&rft.title=TOWN+OF+BLOOMSBURG%2C+COLUMBIA+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA%3A+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT INTERMODAL FRIEGHT TERMINAL (DIFT), WAYNE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36439246; 11517 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an intermodal freight terminal in Wayne and Oakland counties, Michigan are proposed to serve the Detroit area. In southeastern Michigan, most intermodal exchange (i.e., the transfer of freight containers to and from trucks from railway vehicles) is conducted by Norfolk Southern (NS) Triple Crown operation. Currently, that is accomplished at the Melvindale and the recently reopened Willow Run terminals. Canadian Pacific (CP) also transfers trailers in its Expressway operation at the terminal behind the Michigan Central Depot. CP also transfers containers at the Oak terminal. Finally both NS and CSX transfer containers at the Livernois-Junction Yard and Canadian National Crairoad transfers containers at the Moterm terminal in Ferndale. The Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) Study includes the proposed enhancement of intermodal operations by four Class I railroads at four intermodal terminals that would continue to exist in the future: Livernois-Junction yard; CP/Expressway's; CO/Oak; and CN/Moterm. Information gathered for the DIFT indicates that there is a lack of adequate intermodal capacity. The Michigan Department of Transportation is seeking federal funding to consolidate all NS operations in Michigan at the Livernois-Junction yard. This would leave four intermodal Class I railroad terminals serving southeast Michigan in the future. These four terminals are the subject of the DIFT Study required to obtain federal funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. alternative 2 would make improvements to four existing intermodal rail terminals (Livernois-Junction yard, CP/Expressway, CP/Oak, and CN/Moterm), with railroad funding as well as federal and state government funding assistance and oversight. This alternative includes improvements inside and outside the existing terminal property. Alternative 3 would provide for intermodal operations for all four Class 1 railroads at the Livernois-Junction yard area, using the same sources of funding and over site as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would provide intermodal operations for three railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Canadian Pacific), which would be consolidated at the site of the Livernois-Junction Yard, while improving and expanding the existing CN/Moterm terminal, using the same funding sources and oversight as under Alternative 2. Under alternatives 3 and 4, the existing terminals from which business was transferred would continue to serve other railroads. Costs for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are estimated at $267.2 million, $582.7 million, and $550.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reorganization and/or consolidation of intermodal freight exchange in southeastern Michigan would make intermodal transfers more efficient and effective, saving transportation time and costs and, thereby, reducing consumer costs and speeding delivery of consumer and non-consumer products. Employment would increase at and in the vicinity of and consolidation point. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition and development would displace up to 83 residences and 14 to 64 businesses as well as up to 0.08 acre of wetlands. Approximately 35 acres of recreational land would be removed from the State Fairgrounds under Alternative 2. Truck traffic around any point of consolidation of intermodal exchange would increase significantly, as would train traffic at the affected terminals. Jobs would be relocated and some net job loss would result from any consolidation alternative due to increased economies of scale. All action alternatives would result in the disturbance of hazardous materials sites. Former clay pits would need geotechnical testing prior to and construction of structures. 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.) JF - EPA number: 050190, 511 pages and maps, May 4, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETROIT+INTERMODAL+FRIEGHT+TERMINAL+%28DIFT%29%2C+WAYNE+AND+OAKLAND+COUNTIES%2C+MICHIGAN.&rft.title=DETROIT+INTERMODAL+FRIEGHT+TERMINAL+%28DIFT%29%2C+WAYNE+AND+OAKLAND+COUNTIES%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETROIT INTERMODAL FRIEGHT TERMINAL (DIFT), WAYNE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DETROIT INTERMODAL FRIEGHT TERMINAL (DIFT), WAYNE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES, MICHIGAN. AN - 36369994; 050638D-050190_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an intermodal freight terminal in Wayne and Oakland counties, Michigan are proposed to serve the Detroit area. In southeastern Michigan, most intermodal exchange (i.e., the transfer of freight containers to and from trucks from railway vehicles) is conducted by Norfolk Southern (NS) Triple Crown operation. Currently, that is accomplished at the Melvindale and the recently reopened Willow Run terminals. Canadian Pacific (CP) also transfers trailers in its Expressway operation at the terminal behind the Michigan Central Depot. CP also transfers containers at the Oak terminal. Finally both NS and CSX transfer containers at the Livernois-Junction Yard and Canadian National Crairoad transfers containers at the Moterm terminal in Ferndale. The Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) Study includes the proposed enhancement of intermodal operations by four Class I railroads at four intermodal terminals that would continue to exist in the future: Livernois-Junction yard; CP/Expressway's; CO/Oak; and CN/Moterm. Information gathered for the DIFT indicates that there is a lack of adequate intermodal capacity. The Michigan Department of Transportation is seeking federal funding to consolidate all NS operations in Michigan at the Livernois-Junction yard. This would leave four intermodal Class I railroad terminals serving southeast Michigan in the future. These four terminals are the subject of the DIFT Study required to obtain federal funding. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. alternative 2 would make improvements to four existing intermodal rail terminals (Livernois-Junction yard, CP/Expressway, CP/Oak, and CN/Moterm), with railroad funding as well as federal and state government funding assistance and oversight. This alternative includes improvements inside and outside the existing terminal property. Alternative 3 would provide for intermodal operations for all four Class 1 railroads at the Livernois-Junction yard area, using the same sources of funding and over site as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would provide intermodal operations for three railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Canadian Pacific), which would be consolidated at the site of the Livernois-Junction Yard, while improving and expanding the existing CN/Moterm terminal, using the same funding sources and oversight as under Alternative 2. Under alternatives 3 and 4, the existing terminals from which business was transferred would continue to serve other railroads. Costs for alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are estimated at $267.2 million, $582.7 million, and $550.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reorganization and/or consolidation of intermodal freight exchange in southeastern Michigan would make intermodal transfers more efficient and effective, saving transportation time and costs and, thereby, reducing consumer costs and speeding delivery of consumer and non-consumer products. Employment would increase at and in the vicinity of and consolidation point. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition and development would displace up to 83 residences and 14 to 64 businesses as well as up to 0.08 acre of wetlands. Approximately 35 acres of recreational land would be removed from the State Fairgrounds under Alternative 2. Truck traffic around any point of consolidation of intermodal exchange would increase significantly, as would train traffic at the affected terminals. Jobs would be relocated and some net job loss would result from any consolidation alternative due to increased economies of scale. All action alternatives would result in the disturbance of hazardous materials sites. Former clay pits would need geotechnical testing prior to and construction of structures. 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.) JF - EPA number: 050190, 511 pages and maps, May 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-XX-EIS-05-XX-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Michigan KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lansing, Michigan; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Characterization of a military training site containing (super 232) thorium AN - 51498432; 2007-013329 JF - Chemosphere (Oxford) AU - Larson, Steven L AU - Bednar, A J AU - Ballard, J H AU - Shettlemore, M G AU - Gent, D B AU - Christodoulatos, C AU - Manis, R AU - Morgan, J C AU - Fields, M P Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - 1015 EP - 1022 PB - Elsevier VL - 59 IS - 7 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - United States KW - Global Positioning System KW - isotopes KW - Bernalillo County New Mexico KW - radioactivity KW - Th-232 KW - New Mexico KW - environmental analysis KW - radioactive isotopes KW - explosives KW - transport KW - Kirtland Air Force Base KW - soils KW - concentration KW - pollutants KW - background level KW - pollution KW - migration of elements KW - thorium oxides KW - two-dimensional models KW - Albuquerque New Mexico KW - detection KW - metals KW - runoff KW - thorium KW - risk assessment KW - wind transport KW - military facilities KW - actinides KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51498432?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=Chemosphere+%28Oxford%29&rft.atitle=Characterization+of+a+military+training+site+containing+%28super+232%29+thorium&rft.au=Larson%2C+Steven+L%3BBednar%2C+A+J%3BBallard%2C+J+H%3BShettlemore%2C+M+G%3BGent%2C+D+B%3BChristodoulatos%2C+C%3BManis%2C+R%3BMorgan%2C+J+C%3BFields%2C+M+P&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1015&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere+%28Oxford%29&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2004.11.024 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00456535 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - CMSHAF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - actinides; Albuquerque New Mexico; background level; Bernalillo County New Mexico; concentration; detection; environmental analysis; explosives; Global Positioning System; isotopes; Kirtland Air Force Base; metals; migration of elements; military facilities; New Mexico; pollutants; pollution; radioactive isotopes; radioactivity; risk assessment; runoff; soils; Th-232; thorium; thorium oxides; transport; two-dimensional models; United States; wind transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.11.024 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A toolbox of models for evaluating appropriateness of infiltration predictions in coupled surface and subsurface flow applications AN - 51466877; 2007-032793 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Talbot, C A AU - Ogden, F AU - Or, D AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - Abstract H13B EP - 11 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 86 IS - 18, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - soils KW - hydrology KW - numerical models KW - watersheds KW - unsaturated zone KW - coupling KW - saturated zone KW - Richards equation KW - infiltration KW - theoretical models KW - hydrodynamics KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51466877?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+toolbox+of+models+for+evaluating+appropriateness+of+infiltration+predictions+in+coupled+surface+and+subsurface+flow+applications&rft.au=Talbot%2C+C+A%3BOgden%2C+F%3BOr%2C+D%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Talbot&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=18%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 2005 joint assembly N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - coupling; hydraulic conductivity; hydrodynamics; hydrology; infiltration; numerical models; Richards equation; saturated zone; soils; theoretical models; unsaturated zone; watersheds ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The integration of GPR, GIS, and GPS for 3D soil morphologic models AN - 51310259; 2008-009193 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Tischler, M AU - Collins, M E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - Abstract NS34A EP - 03 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 86 IS - 18, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - Global Positioning System KW - geophysical surveys KW - spatial data KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - data processing KW - characterization KW - Hawthorn Formation KW - Florida KW - Cenozoic KW - geographic information systems KW - horizons KW - soils KW - Ocala Group KW - three-dimensional models KW - Eocene KW - geophysical methods KW - radar methods KW - Paleogene KW - Miocene KW - morphology KW - computer programs KW - case studies KW - Tertiary KW - upper Eocene KW - Neogene KW - soil surveys KW - surveys KW - information systems KW - accuracy KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51310259?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=The+integration+of+GPR%2C+GIS%2C+and+GPS+for+3D+soil+morphologic+models&rft.au=Tischler%2C+M%3BCollins%2C+M+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Tischler&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=18%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 2005 joint assembly N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; case studies; Cenozoic; characterization; computer programs; data processing; Eocene; Florida; geographic information systems; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Global Positioning System; ground-penetrating radar; Hawthorn Formation; horizons; information systems; Miocene; morphology; Neogene; Ocala Group; Paleogene; radar methods; soil surveys; soils; spatial data; surveys; Tertiary; three-dimensional models; United States; upper Eocene ER - TY - JOUR T1 - InSAR analysis of subsiding soils; Amherst and surroundings, NY AN - 50451610; 2009-037302 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Becker, R AU - Sultan, M AU - Giese, R AU - Guay, B AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - Abstract G23A EP - 01 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 86 IS - 18, SUPPL. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - Great Lakes region KW - geologic hazards KW - subsidence KW - land subsidence KW - geodesy KW - Buffalo New York KW - urban environment KW - foundations KW - Erie County New York KW - SAR KW - Great Lakes KW - plains KW - soft clays KW - Amherst New York KW - soil mechanics KW - North America KW - Lake Ontario KW - Lake Erie KW - damage KW - radar methods KW - deformation KW - interferometry KW - measurement KW - New York KW - unconsolidated materials KW - InSAR KW - remote sensing KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50451610?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=InSAR+analysis+of+subsiding+soils%3B+Amherst+and+surroundings%2C+NY&rft.au=Becker%2C+R%3BSultan%2C+M%3BGiese%2C+R%3BGuay%2C+B%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Becker&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=86&rft.issue=18%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 2005 joint assembly N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2009-01-01 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EOSTAJ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Amherst New York; Buffalo New York; damage; deformation; Erie County New York; foundations; geodesy; geologic hazards; Great Lakes; Great Lakes region; InSAR; interferometry; Lake Erie; Lake Ontario; land subsidence; measurement; New York; North America; plains; radar methods; remote sensing; SAR; soft clays; soil mechanics; subsidence; unconsolidated materials; United States; urban environment ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of natural organic matter on the speciation of uranium AN - 50288000; 2006-024161 JF - Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta AU - Bednar, Anthony J AU - Medina, Victor F AU - Larson, Steven L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - 542 PB - Pergamon, Oxford VL - 69 IS - 10, Suppl. SN - 0016-7037, 0016-7037 KW - sorption KW - desorption KW - natural materials KW - complexing KW - mass spectra KW - vegetation KW - humic acids KW - ligands KW - spectra KW - mobility KW - geochemistry KW - soils KW - Plantae KW - pollution KW - organo-metallics KW - organic compounds KW - organic acids KW - humic substances KW - soil pollution KW - metals KW - chromatograms KW - uranium KW - actinides KW - chemical fractionation KW - 22:Environmental geology KW - 02A:General geochemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50288000?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=Geochimica+et+Cosmochimica+Acta&rft.atitle=Effects+of+natural+organic+matter+on+the+speciation+of+uranium&rft.au=Bednar%2C+Anthony+J%3BMedina%2C+Victor+F%3BLarson%2C+Steven+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bednar&rft.aufirst=Anthony&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=10%2C+Suppl.&rft.spage=542&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geochimica+et+Cosmochimica+Acta&rft.issn=00167037&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00167037 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 15th annual V. M. Goldschmidt conference N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GCACAK N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - actinides; chemical fractionation; chromatograms; complexing; desorption; geochemistry; humic acids; humic substances; ligands; mass spectra; metals; mobility; natural materials; organic acids; organic compounds; organo-metallics; Plantae; pollution; soil pollution; soils; sorption; spectra; uranium; vegetation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Beach Profile Equilibrium and Patterns of Wave Decay and Energy Dissipation across the Surf Zone Elucidated in a Large-Scale Laboratory Experiment AN - 19587269; 8698037 AB - The widely accepted assumption that the equilibrium beach profile in the surf zone corresponds with uniform wave-energy dissipation per unit volume is directly examined in six cases from the large-scale SUPERTANK laboratory experiment. Under irregular waves, the pattern of wave-energy dissipation across a large portion of the surf zone became relatively uniform as the beach profile evolved toward equilibrium. Rates of wave-energy dissipation across a near-equilibrium profile calculated from wave decay in the surf zone support the prediction derived by Dean (1977). Substantially different equilibrium beach-profile shapes and wave-energy dissipation rates and patterns were generated for regular waves as compared to irregular waves of similar statistical significant wave height and spectral peak period. Large deviation of wave-energy dissipation from the equilibrium rate occurred at areas on the beach profile with active net cross-shore sediment transport and substantial sedimentation and erosion. The rate of wave-energy dissipation was greater at the main breaker line and in the swash zone, as compared to middle of the surf zone. Based on analysis of the SUPERTANK data, a simple equation is developed for predicting the height of irregular waves in the surf zone on an equilibrium profile. The decay in wave height is proportional to the water depth to the one-half power, as opposed to values of unity or greater derived previously for regular waves. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Wang, Ping AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AD - U.S. Army Engineer, Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A, pwang@chuma1.cas.usf.edu Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - 522 EP - 534 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. VL - 21 IS - 3 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Beach profile KW - equilibrium KW - cross-shore sediment transport KW - wave breaking KW - coastal morphology KW - SUPERTANK KW - physical modeling KW - Prediction KW - Statistical analysis KW - Coastal research KW - Swash KW - Wave dissipation KW - Waves KW - Sediment transport KW - Decay KW - Sedimentation KW - Laboratory experiments KW - Beaches KW - Laboratory testing KW - Laboratories KW - Wave processes on beaches KW - Surf zone KW - Surf KW - Beach Profiles KW - Wave Height KW - Erosion KW - Equilibrium KW - Profiles KW - water depth KW - Regular waves KW - energy dissipation KW - Beach profiles KW - Irregular waves KW - Breakers KW - Wave generation KW - Q2 09271:Coastal morphology KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) KW - SW 7060:Research facilities UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19587269?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=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Beach+Profile+Equilibrium+and+Patterns+of+Wave+Decay+and+Energy+Dissipation+across+the+Surf+Zone+Elucidated+in+a+Large-Scale+Laboratory+Experiment&rft.au=Wang%2C+Ping%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Ping&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=522&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2F03-003.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2008-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Regular waves; Wave dissipation; Wave processes on beaches; Breakers; Irregular waves; Beach profiles; Surf zone; Sedimentation; Wave generation; Erosion; Coastal research; Statistical analysis; Sediment transport; Swash; Laboratory experiments; Beaches; Laboratory testing; water depth; energy dissipation; Decay; Prediction; Equilibrium; Profiles; Laboratories; Waves; Surf; Beach Profiles; Wave Height DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/03-003.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sheldon Marsh Environmental Restoration (Section 227) Project Physical Modeling AN - 19491401; 7182952 AB - Sheldon Marsh Nature Preserve is located in the southwestern end of Lake Erie near Sandusky Bay, Ohio. The project area consists of a 1.8 km long eroding barrier beach that rises 2.1m to 2.4m above LWD and fronts a wetland nature preserve. The marsh is one of few remaining Lake Erie coastal wetlands not restricted by a system of dikes for water level management and contains a variety of habitats. Restoration and protection of the barrier beach is essential to the survival of plant and animal communities whose natural habitat has been severely restricted by urbanization and development along the Lake Erie shore. A submerged, segmented rubblemound breakwater system was proposed and tested for the site using a fixed bed physical model at the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS. The proposed projects intent is to stabilize the existing barrier beach, decrease overwash and sand loss, and minimize impact on the existing surroundings. The physical model study involved tests of various submerged breakwater configurations and materials. These tests demonstrated that the proposed structures can reduce incident wave height at the shore by 20-50% depending on incoming wave conditions and existing water levels.Background information and results obtained from the physical model studies will be presented. JF - Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research AU - Chader, SA AU - Mohr, M C AU - Ward, D L AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY, 14207 Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 PB - International Association for Great Lakes Research, 2205 Commonwealth Boulevard Ann Arbor MI 48105 USA VL - 48 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - shores KW - Barriers KW - Urbanization KW - Model Testing KW - Freshwater KW - North America, Erie L. KW - Rubblemound breakwaters KW - Lakes KW - Barrier beaches KW - Sand KW - Wetlands KW - Structural Engineering KW - Beaches KW - Marshes KW - Habitat KW - Overwash KW - Model Studies KW - Coastal zone management KW - water levels KW - USA, Ohio, Erie L., Sandusky Bay KW - Coastal Engineering KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Habitat improvement KW - North America, Great Lakes KW - Nature conservation KW - Environmental restoration KW - USA, Ohio KW - survival KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - P 9000:ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION KW - SW 6070:Materials UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19491401?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+Conference+on+Great+Lakes+Research&rft.atitle=Sheldon+Marsh+Environmental+Restoration+%28Section+227%29+Project+Physical+Modeling&rft.au=Chader%2C+SA%3BMohr%2C+M+C%3BWard%2C+D+L&rft.aulast=Chader&rft.aufirst=SA&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Annual+Conference+on+Great+Lakes+Research&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Urbanization; Barrier beaches; Habitat improvement; Nature conservation; Wetlands; Marshes; Overwash; Rubblemound breakwaters; Coastal zone management; shores; Beaches; Lakes; water levels; Sand; Environmental restoration; survival; Habitat; Barriers; Aquatic Habitats; Coastal Engineering; Model Testing; Structural Engineering; Model Studies; USA, Ohio, Erie L., Sandusky Bay; North America, Great Lakes; USA, Ohio; North America, Erie L.; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of fractal flocculation and vertical transport model to aquatic sol-sediment systems AN - 17461444; 6658772 AB - In estuarine and coastal environments, flocculation occurs between particles of different fractal dimensions and of different densities. Questions remain concerning the level of detail required to model particle flocculation and settling in these heterogeneous systems. This paper compares the goodness of fit between two flocculation models, using measured time series particle size distribution data collected from clay, colloidal silica, emulsified crude oil, clay-crude oil, and silica-crude oil systems. The coalesced sphere (CS) flocculation model includes the effects of heterogeneous particle size and density; the modified coalesced fractal sphere (mCFS) model adds effects due to heterogeneous fractal dimension. Goodness of fit was quantified using values of a minimized objective function, the mean of the sum of the square of the relative residuals (MSSRR). For nearly all tested experimental conditions, MSSRR values varied less than 5% between the CS and mCFS flocculation models. Additionally, collision efficiency values for single-particle-type ( alpha sub(HOMOO)) and dual-particle-type ( alpha sub(HETT)) systems were obtained through parameter regression using the CS and mCFS models. Using the mCFS model, estimated fractal dimension (D) values obtained for clay and clay-oil systems were between 2.6 and 3.0, lower than that postulated by the CS model but higher than that estimated experimentally by the particle concentration technique. The Stokes settling velocity of a clay aggregate of a given mass is reduced with decreased fractal dimension. This results in clay-oil flocculation occurring faster than floc sedimentation in the studied hydrodynamic range. Thus, the mCFS model provides insights to the fate of spilled oil in inland and coastal waters. JF - Water Research AU - Sterling, Michael C AU - Bonner, James S AU - Ernest, Andrew NS AU - Page, Cheryl A AU - Autenrieth, Robin L AD - Environmental and Water Resources Division, Civil Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136, USA, michael.c.sterling@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - 1818 EP - 1830 PB - Elsevier Science Ltd., The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl] VL - 39 IS - 9 SN - 0043-1354, 0043-1354 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Coagulation KW - Fractal KW - Collision efficiency KW - Suspended particulate matter KW - Estuarine Environment KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Coastal Waters KW - Particle Size KW - Model Testing KW - Particulates KW - Flocculation KW - Clays KW - Oil KW - Efficiency KW - Crude oil KW - silica KW - Sedimentation KW - Oil spills KW - Particle size KW - Clay KW - time series analysis KW - Density KW - Objective Function KW - Velocity KW - Coastal waters KW - Aggregates KW - Model Studies KW - Fractals KW - Silica KW - Settling Velocity KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17461444?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+Research&rft.atitle=Application+of+fractal+flocculation+and+vertical+transport+model+to+aquatic+sol-sediment+systems&rft.au=Sterling%2C+Michael+C%3BBonner%2C+James+S%3BErnest%2C+Andrew+NS%3BPage%2C+Cheryl+A%3BAutenrieth%2C+Robin+L&rft.aulast=Sterling&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1818&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Research&rft.issn=00431354&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.watres.2005.02.007 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Particle size; Clay; Hydrodynamics; time series analysis; Velocity; Flocculation; Particulates; Coastal waters; Oil; Efficiency; Crude oil; silica; Sedimentation; Oil spills; Estuarine Environment; Density; Particle Size; Coastal Waters; Objective Function; Model Testing; Aggregates; Model Studies; Clays; Fractals; Silica; Settling Velocity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.02.007 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Incremental Improvements in Chesapeake Bay Environmental Model Package AN - 16192117; 6211411 AB - The performance of the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Model Package is examined in four steps of model development. The steps include initial application, grid refinements, addition of living resources, and grid refinements with recalibration. Performance statistics are presented for the mainstem bay and for the James River, a major tributary. Computed salinity has the lowest relative error. Computed total phosphorus and surface chlorophyll have the greatest relative error. Errors in the bay are lower than in the James River. The capacity of the model has increased substantially over more than a decade but quantitative performance, measured by the summary statistics, has reached a plateau. Limited spatial sampling, uncertainty in loading, and difficulty in assigning boundary conditions are among the factors that limit the accuracy that can be attained with the model. JF - Journal of Environmental Engineering AU - Cerco, C F AU - Noel, M R AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Mail Stop EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, cercoc@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2005/05// PY - 2005 DA - May 2005 SP - 745 EP - 754 VL - 131 IS - 5 SN - 0733-9372, 0733-9372 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Oceanic Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Chlorophyll KW - USA, Virginia, James R. KW - Phosphorus KW - Water quality KW - Salinity KW - Brackishwater environment KW - Bays KW - Modelling KW - Mathematical models KW - USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Estuaries KW - Water Quality KW - Errors KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Model Studies KW - Analytical Methods KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - O 4080:Pollution - Control and Prevention KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16192117?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+Environmental+Engineering&rft.atitle=Incremental+Improvements+in+Chesapeake+Bay+Environmental+Model+Package&rft.au=Cerco%2C+C+F%3BNoel%2C+M+R&rft.aulast=Cerco&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2005-05-01&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=745&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+Engineering&rft.issn=07339372&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9372%282005%29131%3A5%28745%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Brackishwater environment; Water quality; Modelling; Salinity; Chlorophyll; Mathematical models; Phosphorus; Bays; Analytical Methods; Estuaries; Water Quality; Errors; Model Studies; USA, Virginia, James R.; USA, Chesapeake Bay; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:5(745) ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36379244; 050449D-050176_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36379244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36379109; 050449D-050176_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36379109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36372387; 050449D-050176_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36372387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36371932; 050449D-050176_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36371932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=REMEDIATON+OF+THE+MOAB+URANIUM+MILL+TAILINGS%2C+GRAND+AND+SAN+JUAN+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36371763; 050449D-050176_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36371763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36371590; 050449D-050176_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36371590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36370682; 050449D-050176_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a modified and approved master plan for Juneau International Airport in the city and borough of Juneau, Alaska is proposed. Juneau is located on the panhandle of southeastern Alaska and within the Inside Passage alongside Gastineau Channel, approximately 950 air miles northwest of Seattle and 570 miles southeast of Anchorage. The airport plays an important role n serving the capital of Alaska by providing direct, non-stop service to Anchorage and other Alaskan cities. Juneau Airport is the primary commercial service airport for southeast Alaska and, other than ferry service, provides the only access to areas outside the Juneau area. The 662-acre facility, located nine miles northwest of downtown Juneau, is situated in a mountainous region, placing limits on flight operations. Proposed actions and alternatives would address deficiencies in the runway safety area, the snow removal equipment and maintenance building and access to these facilities, the fuel farm locations and configurations, and aviation facilities, including helicopter and fixed wing aircraft storage, such as hangers and tiedowns, and facilities and management directions for wildlife hazard management. The proposed improvements would be implemented from 2005 to 2015. In addition to the alternatives relative to each improvement topic, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative for each topic. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would bring the airport into compliance with federal standards for runway safety areas; improve the navigational alignment of Runway 26 at night and during poor weather; provide for more efficient and rapid snow removal as well as an improved, safer, and more secure access route to the fuel farm; provide new aircraft parking and storage facilities to meet existing and future demand; and implement an improved wildlife hazard management program to reduce the potential for aircraft collisions with wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of runway, roadway, and/or safety area facilities would result in the displacement of wetlands and water bodies adjacent tot he airfield. The hydrological regime of the Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge and Jordan Creek estuarine wetlands, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of recreational values of the Dike Trail within the refuge would probably result from airport expansion. Noise levels would increase due to increases in traffic volume and the size of aircraft accommodated by the airport. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241.), Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. App. 1301 et seq.), 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.). JF - EPA number: 050176, 381 pages and maps; CD-ROM, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Fuel Storage KW - Helicopters KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Compliance 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/36370682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=JUNEAU+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+CITY+AND+BOROUGH+OF+JUNEAU%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Anchorage, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-49 SOUTH, LAFAYETE REGIONAL AIRPORT TO LA 88, ROUTE U.S. 90, IBERIA, LAYFAYETTE, AND ST. MARTIN PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FEDERAL PROJECT NO. I-49-1(057); STATE PROJECT NO. 700-99-00230). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-49 SOUTH, LAFAYETE REGIONAL AIRPORT TO LA 88, ROUTE U.S. 90, IBERIA, LAYFAYETTE, AND ST. MARTIN PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FEDERAL PROJECT NO. I-49-1(057); STATE PROJECT NO. 700-99-00230). AN - 36370335; 050637F-050178_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of existing US 90 from Lafayette Regional Airport to Louisiana 88 (LA 88) in Iberia, Lafayette, and St. Martin, Louisiana, is proposed. More specifically, the highway would extend from a point just south of Jakuste Saloom Road near the airport to the LA 88 interchange in Iberia Parish, a distance of 10.8 miles. Connecting roadways would include relocated Verot School Road, relocated Southpark road (LA 89), Morgan Street, Eola Street, Albertson's Parkway, LA 182, Ambassador Cafferty Parkway, LA 92 West and LA 92 East. The LA 92 section connecting to LA 88 would be incorporated as part of the project. The project would include the addition of travel lanes, providing a six-lane, full control access facility. and two-lane, one-way frontage roads. Ramps would provide access control via grade separation of major connecting roads and frontage roads and local destinations. Three study corridor segments and several sub alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Within the city of Lafayette, the current average daily traffic (ADT) on US 90 ranges from 35,000 to 47,000 vehicles per day (VPD). In rural areas, ADT averages 29,000 VPD. The project would be completed in two stages. Estimated costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mitigation for the preferred alternative at initial build-out are $312 million, $7.0 million, and 2.0 million, respectively. Estimated costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mitigation for the preferred alternative at full build-out are $337 million, $9.0 million, and 2.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: This roadway section design would separate through traffic from slower-moving local traffic. To the extent possible, project activity would take place within the existing US 90 rights-of-way in conformance with the desire tp cause the lease possible disruption to local business and through traffic and to the natural and human environment, adopt best practices for local and business traffic, and improve hurricane evacuation capacity. In general, the project would improve system linkage, hurricane evacuation, regional mobility, and safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the relocation of 11 commercial establishments and affect control of access at two locations. Approximately 4.1 acres of wet ditches, 1.2 acres of bottom land hardwoods, and one additional acre of jurisdictional waters of the US waters of the US would be lost. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards within the vicinity of 116 residents by the year 2030. Noise levels would also exceed standards at a campground ad RV parking area along Mereline Drive in Maxie's Campground. Construction of noise barriers would be feasible in two locations. Air quality would be improved along main travel sections of the highway and degraded at intersections, though overall air quality would improve along the corridor. The project would mar the visual aesthetics in the historically significant Broussard Multiple Resource Area. 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. 7600 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 03-0351D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050178, 323 pages and maps, April 26, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-F KW - Airports KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Hurricanes KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Fede